DeLibero v Douglas Elliman, LLC

[*1] DeLibero v Douglas Elliman, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 50172(U) Decided on February 13, 2018 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 13, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.
570564/17

Grace DeLibero, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Douglas Elliman, LLC and Christine Traina, Defendants-Cross-Appellants.

Plaintiff appeals and defendants cross-appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J.), dated June 14, 2017, which denied their respective cross motions for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J.), dated June 14, 2017, affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact preclude summary judgment in favor of either side in this dispute between brokers over a commission for non-party tenants' commercial lease. Triable issues are raised as to whether plaintiff was the "procuring cause" of the transaction, given that tenants sent an email that acknowledged plaintiff's status as their "broker" and requested that plaintiff "put in an offer for the space" on tenants' behalf, and that this offer was the first one submitted to the landlord (see Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206 [1980]; Sholom & Zuckerbrot Realty Corp. v 101 Fleet Place Assoc., 206 AD2d 965 [1994]; J. Grotto & Assoc. v Lax, 174 AD2d 394 [1991]).

Good Life Realty, Inc. v Massey Knakal Realty of Manhattan, LLC, (93 AD3d 490 [2012]), heavily relied upon by defendants, is distinguishable because plaintiff herein is a duly licensed broker, who was engaged by the nonparty tenants to act on their behalf to negotiate the rental price for the retail space, and plaintiff had direct contact with defendant, the broker exclusively responsible for listing the property.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 13, 2018