From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown Harris Stevens Res. v. Oxford Capital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2003
306 A.D.2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1406

June 12, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 13, 2003, which denied plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants' motion for further discovery on the issue of whether plaintiff breached its fiduciary duty to defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Neal Schwarzfeld, for plaintiff-appellant.

Allen G. Reiter Michael S. Gugig, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.


The documents belatedly provided to defendants raised material issues of fact as to whether plaintiff paid kickbacks to an employee of defendants' parent company to influence the very transactions for which plaintiff now seeks payment of commissions, and in connection with which plaintiff owed defendant a fiduciary duty as broker, and as to whether plaintiff billed the lessee as well as defendant lessors for commissions on the subject transactions. Non-disclosure of either circumstance would breach plaintiff's fiduciary duty and would be a complete defense to the claim for commissions (see generally Dubbs v. Stribling Assocs., 96 N.Y.2d 337, 340; Precision Glass Tinting, Inc. v. Long, 293 A.D.2d 594). That defendants did not include in their motion for summary judgment an affidavit of anyone with personal knowledge is of no moment; counsel's affirmation was a proper vehicle for the submission of the documents relied upon by defendants (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563; Dominican Festival Parade Comm., Inc. v. Valasquez, 208 A.D.2d 431) . The affidavit of Krys Mitkiewicz on behalf of plaintiff, does not conclusively negate the inferences raised by these documents. Furthermore, the court correctly found that further discovery on these issues was necessary, since the facts are exclusively within plaintiff's knowledge (see Berkeley Fed. Bank Trust FSB v. 229 E. 53rdSt. Assn., 242 A.D.2d 489).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Brown Harris Stevens Res. v. Oxford Capital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2003
306 A.D.2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Brown Harris Stevens Res. v. Oxford Capital

Case Details

Full title:BROWN HARRIS STEVENS RESIDENTIAL SALES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 876

Citing Cases

People v. Coventry First LLC

If conflicts of interest exists, a broker must disclose them to the principal. See Stevens Residential Sales,…

NRT N.Y., LLC v. Morin

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2015, which,…