Owens v Veta Brome Real Estate, Inc.

[*1] Owens v Veta Brome Real Estate, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 51451(U) Decided on July 25, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 25, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-868 Q C.

Cynthia Owens, Appellant,

against

Veta Brome Real Estate, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered January 28, 2011, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered February 28, 2011 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the January 28, 2011 order granting the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff contracted with defendant, a realtor, to list a rental property. After plaintiff leased the premises to an individual who had been introduced to her by defendant, the tenant defaulted in paying rent and damaged the premises. Plaintiff then brought this action against defendant seeking $25,000 for property damage, $25,000 for failure to provide proper services, $25,000 for loss of property, $25,000 for loss of use of property, $10,000 for lawyer's fees, $10,000 for repairs, $10,000 for travel expenses, and $20,000 for pain and suffering.

Plaintiff's responses to defendant's bill of particulars provided detailed information of an evidentiary nature which established that plaintiff's action was based on defendant's alleged breach of a rental listing agreement and defendant's alleged guaranty to provide proper services [*2]pursuant to the listing agreement. Defendant moved to, among other things, dismiss the action on the ground that the Civil Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the causes of action set forth in the endorsed complaint stated but one cause of action which exceeded the $25,000 monetary jurisdiction of the Civil Court (see CCA 202, 211). By order entered January 28, 2011, the Civil Court, among other things, granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

On appeal, plaintiff fails to raise any issue challenging the Civil Court's determination. As we find no basis to disturb the portion of the order granting the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint, which alleges a single cause of action in excess of the monetary jurisdiction of the court (CCA 202), the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 25, 2012