Cutler v Silver
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 20, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570117/10.
Joanna Cutler, Plaintiff-Respondent,
against
Richard Silver, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York
County (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered December 29, 2009, which, upon a prior order granting
summary judgment, awarded plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $19,440.
Per Curiam.
Judgment (Jose A. Padilla, J.), entered December 29, 2009, affirmed, with $25 costs.
Plaintiff broker made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on her cause of action to recover a commission, since she demonstrated the existence of a binding brokerage agreement between the parties and defendant's breach thereof (see generally Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v Dollar Land Corp., 44 AD2d 445 [1974], affd 36 NY2d 490 [1975]). Defendant, who signed the enforceable written lease agreement upon which plaintiff's claim is founded, failed to raise a triable issue (see generally Kaplon-Belo Assoc. v Farrelly, 221 AD2d 321 [1995]).
We reject defendant's contention that summary judgment in plaintiff's favor is inappropriate because plaintiff failed to join as a necessary party an individual, Kimberley, claimed by defendant to have been plaintiff's co-broker. Defendant failed to establish that Kimberley must be a party to this action to accord complete relief between the parties or that Kimberley would be inequitably affected by a judgment in this action (see CPLR 1001[a]). We note in this connection that, prior to the commencement of the action, defendant tendered a check, payment on which was stopped before it was negotiated, to plaintiff (and plaintiff alone) for the commission, and that Kimberley submitted an affidavit on a prior motion in this action averring that she had an agreement with plaintiff (not defendant) pursuant to which plaintiff would pay her a share of the commission.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 20, 2010
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.