M. Robert Goldman & Co., Inc. v Willwin, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

M. Robert Goldman & Co., Inc. v Willwin, LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 30614(U) March 24, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156516/2016 Judge: David B. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2017 02:45 PM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 156516/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2017 SUPREME:coURT OF THE ST ATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 58 --------------~------------------------------------------------------X M. ROBE~.T GOLDMAN & CO., INC., ·; DECISION/ORDER Index No. 156516/2016 Plaintiff, -against,I WILL WIN; LLC, PEM-AMERICA, INC Defendants. _____________ J_______________________________________________________ x HON. DA ~IDB. COHEN, J.: The' Complaint alleges that plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement where plaintiff would provide fin~ncial services to defendant and secure appropriate financing for defendants to purchase a building. As compensation, defendant promised to pay $90,000.00 in mortgage brokerage fees. Plaintiff further alleges that it secured a commitment from Genworth Financials for the financing, at the terms sought by defenda~t and that defendant even executed a loan application for the financing. However, after I . defendant withdrew the loan application, defendant failed to pay the brokerage fee. The Complaint alleges ~ I three causes of action, (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) quantum meruit. Defendant now moves to dismiss based upon CPLR 3211 (a)(5) and (a)(7). Defendant argues that plaintiff is riot licensed and that the Statute of Frauds, specifically NY GOL 5-70l(a)(IO), applies here; and because the agreement was not.reduced to writing, the contractual and quasi-contractual causes of action ) must be dismissed. Further, the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims should be dismissed as duplicative· and because the loan never closed. Finally, def~ndant points out that when the alleged ,, agreementwas entered into, defendant Willwin, LLC had not even been formed and defendant PEMAmerica ~as never contemplated as the borrower or propos~d purchaser. Plaintiff contends that it is a ~ t licensed re.al estate broker and that NY GOL 5-701(a)(10) contains an exception for licensed real estate brokers. NY GOL 5-701 (a) provides "[E]very agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or me,morandum thereofbe in writing, and·subscribed:by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking: . I 156516/2016 M. ROBERT GOLDMAN & CO., INC. VS. WILLWIN, LLC 2 I Motion of 5 No. 001 Page 1of4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2017 02:45 PM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 156516/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2017 (1 O) :· Is a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating a loan ... "Negotiating" includes procuring an introduction to a party to the transaction or assisting in the negotiation or consummation of the transaction. This provision shall apply to a contract implied in fact.or in law to pay reasonable compensation but shall not apply to a contract to pay compensation to a~ auctioneer, an attorney at law, or a duly license? real estate broker or real estate salesman." General ObJigations Law § 5-701 A plain rea?ing of the statute states that an agreement to negotiate a loan is void unless in writing. However, the statute also clearly states that it does not apply to a contract to pay compensation to a duly licensed real estate broker or real estate salesman. The exception is written without limitation as to the type of work performed by the licensed real estate broker/salesman. In any event, here the complaint alleges that .• plaintiff is fully licensed and seeks compensation for improperly withheld mortgage broker fees. It is clear . that a "reaJlestate broker is specifically exempt from the reach of the Statute of Frauds in respect to earning commissio'hs" (Andover Realty, Inc. v W. Elec. Co., Inc., 100 AD2d 157, 161 [1st Dept 1984), affd. 64 NY2d 100~ [ 1985)). Recovery based upon causes of action lying in breach of contract, unjust enrichment a:nd quantdm meruit is not precluded by the absence of a signed writing if plaintiff is a licensed real estate ! broker expressly exempt from the requirements of the Statute of Frauds (Fid. Bus. Brokers, Inc. v Gama/di, ' 190 AD2d :709 [2d Dept 1993 ]). Here, taking the facts as true as the Court must on a motion to dismiss under 3211 1, defendants' . motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(5) must be denied as this is claim by a real estate broker for ; fees in cor;inection with plaintiffs duties as a real estate broker. Additionally, Real Estate Economic Resources,: Inc. v Armendariz, 162 AD2d 303 [1st Dept 1990), cited by plaintiffs is inapplicable to this matter. In:that case, the broker never alleged it secured a cbmmitment and only provided defendant therein 1 with terms not comparable to those sought· by defendant. 1-Iere, the complaint alleges that plaintiff secured a commitm~nt from Genworth Financials and that the terms \¥ere at least agreeable to defendant at some point as evidenced by the submission of a loan application. Further, the fact that the loan was not consummated 1 The Couh also notes that not only does plaintiff allege that it is a licensed real estate broker and was at the time in question, plaintiff has attached documentation to its opposition that lends credible support to such claim. ' 3 156516/2016 M. ROBERT GOLDMAN & CO., INC. VS. WILLWIN, LLC of 5 Motion No. 001 Page 2 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2017 02:45 PM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 156516/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2017 does not pr~clude plaintiff from collecting compensation contractually due to plaintiff should defendant be I held liable (emphasis added; B.P. Vance Real Estate, Inc. v Tamir, 42 AD3d 343 [1st Dept 2007]["it is well. ! settled common-law rule that a broker who 'produces a person ready and willing to enter into a contract upon his e~ployer's terms ... has earned his commissions,' even if no contract is ever signed" quoting Tanenbau:i v. Boehm, 202 NY 293 [ 1911 ]): Although, "par'ties to a brokerage agreement are free to add whatever conditions they rpay wish to their agreement, including a condition that the contract of sale actually be~consummated before the broker. is deemed to have earned his commission" (id.) at the pleading j ; stage, dismissal without further facts as to the agreement would be inappropriate . ., The motion to dismiss the causes of action for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit on the ; ·f alternative grounds as duplicative and because the loan never closed is granted. To adequately plead a claim for upjust enrichment, the plaintiff must allege "that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that ! . party's expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought t~ be recovered" (Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder, 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). Similarly, to state a cau~e of action, for quantum meruit "plaintiff must a~lege ( 1) the performance of services in good. I faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of • compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services" (Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP v Carucci, . ' 63 AD3d ~87 [1st Dept 2009]) . .l To 'successfully recover on a claim for quasi-contractual relief, plaintiff must have conferred a benefit on·defendant (see Martin H. Bauman Assoc., Inc. v H & M Intern. Transp., Inc., 171 AD2d 479, 484 [1st Dept ~991]; see also Stephen Pevner, Inc. v Ens/er, 309 AD2.d 722, 723 [1st Dept 2003]). Here, I plaintiff acknowledges that the application for the loan was:withdrawn. The Complaint further alleges that defendants were enriched by not paying the brokerage fee. Although, saving money is generally beneficial, the Compl_aint fails to state how defendants' savings were caused through plaintiffs actions of securing the I .' loan com~itment. Thus, although plaintiff al_legedly secured the Joan for defendants, by withdrawing the application and not obtaining the funds, defendants did not'benefit from plaintiff's work as they did not utilize plai'ntiff's work. Plaintiff does not offer any other ai'legations that defendants' obtained benefits from .tI 156516/2016 M; ROBERT GOLDMAN & CO., INC. VS. WILLWIN, LLC 4 Motion of 5 No. 001 Page 3 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2017 02:45 PM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 156516/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2017 the fact tha~ plaintiff worked hard at ob~aining the loan. As plaintiff has not alleged any benefit that it conferred o.n defendants, the second and third causes of action must be dismissed . .. ., Fin~lly, defendants' arguments that when the alleged agreement was entered defendant Willwin, LLC had not even been formed and defendant PEM-America was never the borrower or proposed purchaser ; ! ' . is denied without merit. As alleged, representations were made to plaintiff, that if true, could support liability as.io either or both defendants. ·i For. the above reasons, it is therefore I OR_DERED, that defendants' motion to dismiss the first cause of action is denied; and it is further ORpERED, that defendants' motion to dismiss the ~econd and third causes of action is granted. 1 This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. ' DATE: 3/24/2017 ;----=:...=.___:..:..=.::_:__:__ ; 156516/2016 M. ROBERT GOLDMAN & CO., INC. VS. WILLWIN, LLC 5 Motion of 5 No. 001 Page 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.