Re/Max of N.Y., Inc. v. Energized Realty Grp., LLC
| Decision Date | 27 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 7198/12.,2014-02912 |
| Parties | RE/MAX OF NEW YORK, INC., appellant, v. ENERGIZED REALTY GROUP, LLC, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
135 A.D.3d 924
24 N.Y.S.3d 176
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 00490
RE/MAX OF NEW YORK, INC., appellant,
v.
ENERGIZED REALTY GROUP, LLC, et al., respondents.
2014-02912
Index No. 7198/12.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 27, 2016.
Phillips Lytle LLP, New York, N.Y. (Anna R. Mercado, Edward S. Bloomberg, and Aaron M. Schue of counsel), for appellant.
Michael F. Mongelli II, P.C., Flushing, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a franchise agreement, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), entered January 10, 2014, which, upon a decision dated October 30, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against it, dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith and thereafter the entry of an appropriate judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, inter alia, directing the defendants to transfer and assign the telephone number 718–353–6000 to the plaintiff.
In December 1996 the defendant Judy Markowitz, and her partners at that time, entered into a franchise agreement (hereinafter the 1996 Agreement) with the plaintiff, RE/MAX of New York, Inc. (hereinafter RMNY), for a RE/MAX office in Queens County. The 1996 Agreement provided that when it was terminated, the franchisee was to immediately cause the local telephone company to change all of its telephone numbers and assign the numbers listed for the franchised real estate office to RMNY. The 1996 Agreement also provided that in the event that the franchisee met all of its financial obligations as agreed, it would not be required to change and assign the telephone numbers. The 1996 Agreement also provided that the franchise could be renewed for additional five-year periods and that the terms and conditions of renewal agreements would be, as relevant here, “the same terms and conditions ... of the agreements then being used for the granting of new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
25 Bay Terrace Assocs., L.P. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co.
...may be then permitted to determine the parties' intent as to the meaning of that language" ( RE/MAX of N.Y., Inc. v. Energized Realty Group, LLC, 135 A.D.3d 924, 925, 24 N.Y.S.3d 176 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Only when an ambiguity is found within the four corners of the contract......
-
Gianelli v. Re/Max of N.Y., Inc.
...to obtain the assignment of a telephone number from a former franchisee (see RE/MAX of N.Y., Inc. v. Energized Realty Group, LLC, 135 A.D.3d 924, 24 N.Y.S.3d 176 ). In August 2013, RMNY joined issue and counterclaimed to recover payment of franchise fees due under the franchise agreement an......
-
Doukas v. Ballard
...reliance, and (5) damages (see Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 559, 883 N.Y.S.2d 147, 910 N.E.2d 976; 24 N.Y.S.3d 176 Pace v. Raisman & Assoc., Esqs., LLP, 95 A.D.3d 1185, 945 N.Y.S.2d 118). Moreover, pursuant to CPLR 3016(b), where a cause of action is based ......
-
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Hoar
...... permitted to determine the parties’ intent as to the meaning of that language" ( RE/MAX of N.Y., Inc. v. Energized Realty Group, LLC, 135 A.D.3d 924, 925, 24 N.Y.S.3d 176 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties raised a triable issue of......