From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prudential Wykagyl/Rittenberg Realty v. Calabria-Maher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 2003
1 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09002

Argued October 2, 2003.

November 10, 2003.

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (La Cava, J.), entered August 26, 2002, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint and denied its cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to add the defendant Valerie Calabria-Maher in her capacity as executrix of the estate of Concetta Calabria as a party.

Daniel S. Ronan, Bellerose, N.Y., for appellant.

Keane Beane, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Judson K. Siebert and Nancy Tagliafierro of counsel), for respondent Valerie Calabria-Maher.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence which forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim ( see Trade Source v. Westchester Wood Works, 290 A.D.2d 437). Here, the documentary evidence submitted by both parties flatly contradicted the factual claims alleged in the complaint ( see Morris v. Morris , 306 A.D.2d 449; Marjorie Hausman Realty Co. v. Klaver , 262 A.D.2d 613; Corporate Nat. Realty v. Philson Ltd., 232 A.D.2d 518). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint.

Further, as the plaintiff failed to establish any contractual privity between itself and the proposed defendant, or that there was a meeting of the minds between the buyer and the seller on the essential terms of the sale ( see Salazar, Inc. v. Levy , 237 A.D.2d 583), the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a party defendant since "an amendment which is devoid of merit, and whose insufficiency or lack of merit is 'clear and free from doubt' will not be permitted" ( Mathison v. Zocco, 207 A.D.2d 434, 435, quoting Hauptman v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 162 A.D.2d 588, 589).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Prudential Wykagyl/Rittenberg Realty v. Calabria-Maher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 2003
1 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Prudential Wykagyl/Rittenberg Realty v. Calabria-Maher

Case Details

Full title:PRUDENTIAL WYKAGYL/RITTENBERG REALTY, appellant, v. VALERIA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 10, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 885

Citing Cases

TREELINE GARDEN CITY PLAZA v. UBS WARBURG REAL ESTATE

"To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence which forms the…

Staten Is. Univ. Hosp. v. Sarkis

Accordingly, the HOSPITAL's alternative cause of action for money damages based on the doctor's alleged…