Narrative Opinion Summary
The court's order is affirmed with costs, based on the reasoning provided in Justice Bentley Kassal's opinion at the Appellate Division (102 AD2d 388). The court highlights that the plaintiff's attempt to categorize its services as outside the scope of Real Property Law § 442-d contradicts the assertion in its amended complaint, which claims that the commission was earned by "procuring a purchaser for the Property." The decision is unanimous, with concurrence from Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, and Alexander.
Legal Issues Addressed
Interpretation of Real Property Law Section 442-dsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Real Property Law § 442-d to determine that the plaintiff's services fell within its scope, as the plaintiff claimed in its amended complaint that the commission was earned by 'procuring a purchaser for the Property.'
Reasoning: The court highlights that the plaintiff's attempt to categorize its services as outside the scope of Real Property Law § 442-d contradicts the assertion in its amended complaint, which claims that the commission was earned by 'procuring a purchaser for the Property.'
Judicial Affirmation of Lower Court Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The higher court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, indicating agreement with the reasoning provided by Justice Bentley Kassal.
Reasoning: The court's order is affirmed with costs, based on the reasoning provided in Justice Bentley Kassal's opinion at the Appellate Division (102 AD2d 388).