B&H Assocs. of NY, LLC v. Fairley
| Decision Date | 29 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2015-03027, Index No. 600904/12. |
| Citation | 50 N.Y.S.3d 495,148 A.D.3d 1097 |
| Parties | B&H ASSOCIATES OF NY, LLC, doing business as Prudential Douglas Elliman, appellant, v. Patrick FAIRLEY, et al., defendants, Ana Fairley, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lieb at Law, P.C., Center Moriches, NY (Megan Feinberg and Dennis Valet of counsel), for appellant.
Weber & Pullin LLP, Woodbury, NY (Allan L. Pullin of counsel), for respondent.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered February 27, 2015, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging breach of contract against the defendant Ana Fairley.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging breach of contract against the defendant Ana Fairley is granted.
On April 1, 2011, the defendant Ana Fairley (hereinafter Fairley) and her husband, the defendant Patrick Fairley (hereinafter Fairley's husband), executed a "Listing Agreement for Commercial/Industrial" in favor of the plaintiff, granting it the exclusive right to sell commercial property in Brooklyn for a 12–month term stated to expire on April 1, 2012 (hereinafter the listing agreement). The listing agreement provided that the "undersigned owner" promised to pay the plaintiff a stated commission in the event that the property is sold "by you, by me, or by any other person or broker during the term of this contract." Fairley and her husband each signed the listing agreement on lines designated for "owner." At the time of execution of the listing agreement, the property was owned by the defendants Golden Horn Development, LP, and DL Partners, LLC (hereinafter together the Golden Horn defendants). Fairley's husband, but not Fairley, was a member of both corporations. Prior to the expiration of the listing agreement, the property was sold through a broker other than the plaintiff to a nonparty for a purchase price of $2,035,000. The plaintiff was not paid a commission for the sale.
The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against Fairley, among others, inter alia, alleging breach of contract. After obtaining default judgments against all defendants with the exception of Fairley, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging breach of contract against her. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff's motion, and the plaintiff appeals. We reverse insofar as appealed from.
"The essential elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach" ( 143 Bergen Street, LLC v. Ruderman, 144 A.D.3d 1002, 42 N.Y.S.3d 252 ; see Fairlane Fin. Corp. v. Longspaugh, 144 A.D.3d 858, 41 N.Y.S.3d 284 ). Here, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its breach of contract cause of action by submitting a copy of the listing agreement executed by Fairley, affidavits of its employees attesting to its performance under the contract, and evidence that the property was sold during the term provided for in the listing agreement and that the plaintiff was not paid the stated commission (see 143 Bergen Street, LLC v. Ruderman, 144 A.D.3d 1002, 42 N.Y.S.3d 252 ).
In opposition, Fairley failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ). Contrary to Fairley's contention, parol evidence that she intended to execute the listing agreement as an agent for the corporate owners of the property is not admissible to defeat the plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Only where a contract, on its face, is "ambiguous on the point with respect to whether it is the individual contract of the agent or a contract made for his principal" may parol evidence be admitted "to show whose contract it was intended to be" (Hernandez v. Brookdale Mills, Inc., 194 App.Div. 369, 380, 185 N.Y.S. 485 ; see Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569, 750 N.Y.S.2d 565, 780 N.E.2d 166 ; Legum v. Russo, 133 A.D.3d 638, 639, 20 N.Y.S.3d 124 ; NRT N.Y., LLC v. Harding, 131 A.D.3d 952, 953–954, 16 N.Y.S.3d 255 ; Restatement [Third] of Agency § 6.01 ). "Whether or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrah's Atl. City Operating Co. v. Lamonica (In re JVJ Pharmacy Inc.)
...See, e.g. , Kirschner v. KPMG LLP , 15 N.Y.3d 446, 468-69, 912 N.Y.S.2d 508, 938 N.E.2d 941 (2010) ; B&H Assocs. of N.Y., LLC v. Fairley, 148 A.D.3d 1097, 50 N.Y.S.3d 495, 497(2017). The Second Circuit has also looked to this specific provision of the Third Restatement in deciding agency is......
-
Zai v. RoGallery Image Makers Inc.
... ... establish all the elements of a breach of contract cause of ... action as a matter of law. See B & H Assoc. of NY, ... LLC v. Fairley, 148 A.D.3d 1097 (2d Dept. 2017) ... Plaintiff must show the existence of a contract, the ... plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, ... damages. The determination of whether a contractual term is ... ambiguous is one of law for the Court to determine. See ... South Rd. Assocs., LLC v. IBM, 4 N.Y.3d 272 (2005) ... Here, the undefined term "insurance" is ambiguous ... as it does not include necessary details. Once a ... ...
- 77 Water St., Inc. v. JTC Painting & Decorating Corp.
-
All Seasons Fuels, Inc. v. Morgan Fuel & Heating Co.
...in opposition to All Seasons' prima facie showing (see Glass v. Del Duca, 151 A.D.3d 941, 57 N.Y.S.3d 507 ; B & H Assoc. of NY, LLC v. Fairley, 148 A.D.3d 1097, 1099, 50 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; Scotto v. Georgoulis, 89 A.D.3d 717, 719, 932 N.Y.S.2d 120 ). Furthermore, the summary of sales records, a......
-
Parol evidence
...evidence was admissible to complete the writing. PAROL EVIDENCE §12:10 NEW YORK OBJECTIONS 12-8 B&H Assocs. of NY, LLC v. Fairley , 148 A.D.3d 1097, 50 N.Y.S.3d 495 (1st Dept. 2017). In a breach of contract action, where the contract was unambiguous and complete, the defendant was prohibite......
-
Parol evidence
...was entitled to make. he court held that parol evidence was admissible to complete the writing. B&H Assocs. of NY, LLC v. Fairley , 148 A.D.3d 1097, 50 N.Y.S.3d 495 (1st Dept. 2017). In a breach of contract action, where the contract was unambiguous and complete, the defendant was prohibite......
-
Parol evidence
...was entitled to make. he court held that parol evidence was admissible to complete the writing. B&H Assocs. of NY, LLC v. Fairley , 148 A.D.3d 1097, 50 N.Y.S.3d 495 (1st Dept. 2017). In a breach of contract action, where the contract was unambiguous and complete, the defendant was prohibite......
-
Parol evidence
...contract term requiring defendant to manage its restaurant on a “meaningfully profitable basis.” B&H Assoc. of NY, LLC v. Fairley , 148 A.D.3d 1097, 50 N.Y.S.3d 495 (2d Dept. 2017). In a breach-of-contract action, where the contract was unambiguous and complete, the defendant was prohibited......