| Denham, Wolf Real Estate Servs., Inc. v 60-74 Gansevoort St. LLC |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 01576 [181 AD3d 458] |
| March 10, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Denham, Wolf Real Estate Services, Inc.,
Appellant-Respondent, v 60-74 Gansevoort Street LLC, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Michael E. Feinstein of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (Bryan T. Mohler of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered July 8, 2019, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly found an issue of fact as to whether the lease between defendant and plaintiff's client was cancelled under section 1.F (iii) of the lease. It is undisputed that these sophisticated parties made the payment of plaintiff's brokerage commission contingent on whether or not the lease was cancelled under sections 1.F (ii) and 1.F (iii) of the lease and that plaintiff otherwise performed under the commission agreement. However, the agreement terminating the lease does not specifically cite the section of the lease upon which it was terminated.
We decline defendant's invitation to search the record and grant it summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Gesmer, Kern, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2019 NY Slip Op 32097(U).]