Leuck v Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage

[*1] Leuck v Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage 2007 NY Slip Op 52279(U) [17 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on November 20, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 20, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-1649 S C.

Rebecca Leuck, Respondent,

against

Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage, Appellant.

Consolidated appeal from seven judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered May 19, 2006. The judgments, after a joint nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sums of $2,389.95, $2,352.95, $4,053.83, $2,197.25, $2,538.00, $1,386.50, and $4,456.25, respectively.

Judgments affirmed without costs.

In these seven small claims actions, consolidated in the court below for purposes of trial, plaintiff sought to recover unpaid commissions for seven separate real estate transactions which closed after she resigned from her employment with defendant. We find that the trial court's determination granting plaintiff's claims properly provided the
parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). The trial court found that plaintiff had demonstrated her entitlement to the balance of the commissions sought. The court's decision was based upon the evidence presented at trial, which included testimony that defendant's representative had implicitly agreed to pay plaintiff a 75% commission rate on each of the sales pending at the time she resigned. We find that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgments.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 20, 2007