In a December 2, 2010, decision by Justice Bucaria, the court decided the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in connection with a commercial real estate deal. Plaintiff-real estate broker sued defendant-buyers for breach of an agreement to pay a finder’s fee. Arguing that he agreed to pay an assignment fee rather than a finder’s fee, the individual defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis of the seller’s operating agreement, which indicated that plaintiff had no assignable interest in the underlying property. The LLC defendant separately moved for the same relief on the ground that it was not a party to the agreement. The court denied the individual defendant’s motion, finding that the agreement “may reasonably be construed as providing for a finder’s fee” because plaintiff had introduced him to the seller and brought the parties together. The court, however, also denied plaintiff’s motion finding triable issues of fact regarding the precise nature of the parties’ intentions. Finally, because oral finder’s agreements are barred by the statute of frauds, the court rejected plaintiff’s assertion that the individual defendant had represented himself as a member of the LLC defendant and granted the LLC defendant’s motion based on lack of privity.
Blatt v Ashkenazi, Sup Ct, Nassau County, December 2, 2010, Bucaria, J., Index No. 9556/07