【美国V视讯】  2018年12月6日，纽约最高法院上诉庭第一部门全体无异议裁定: 戴上律师事务所代理的客户在经纪纠纷的上诉案件中获得全胜，该笔交易涉及一项标的高达2.6亿美元的商业地产交易。

原告Republic房地产公司声称其享有对曼哈顿MiMa大厦140多套公寓单位销售的佣金赔偿，总金额高达800万美元。初审法院作出支持原告的简易判决，理由是原告向某潜在买方介绍了该交易，而该潜在买方又将该交易介绍给了最终购买者。

上诉庭第一部门基于多项法律依据一致推翻了初审法院的判决，其中包括原告与最终购买者（数家中国房地产开发商）之间并无任何法律关系。第一部门同时驳回了原告的诉讼。

该上诉案件由戴上律师事务所诉讼部主管 Amiad Kushner律师负责，Jacob Chen律师协助。

附判决正文：

Decided on December 6, 2018

Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Tom, JJ.

7532 652280/16

[*1]Republic Realty Services, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Kuafu Properties LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants. [And A Third-Party Action]


Dai & Associates, P.C., New York (Amiad Kushner and Jacob Chen of counsel), for Kuafu Properties LLC and SCG Mima Towers, LLC, appellants.

Offit Kurman, P.A., New York (Richard G. Menaker of counsel), for respondent.


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered April 20, 2018, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability and denied defendants Kuafu Properties LLC and SCG MiMa Towers LLC's (together Kuafu)cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs to deny plaintiff's motion, and to grant Kuafu's cross motion dismissing the complaint. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Defendant Myles J. Horn's appeal from the foregoing order, unanimously withdrawn, pursuant to the parties' stipulation dated October 5, 2018.

Plaintiff only dealt with Myles J. Horn, not Kuafu. Horn's dealings with Kuafu did not provide a basis for plaintiff to recover against Kuafu. Horn and Kuafu's term sheet established that the two were never joint venturers, refuting plaintiff's claim that Horn was a participant in Kuafu's subsequent acquisition of the property. Moreover, Horn's settlement with Kuafu of his claim that Kuafu stole his opportunity to make the purchase did not grant him an interest in the property so as to make him a successful or partially successful bidder (see Abraham Glanzer, Inc. v Bailey, 254 AD2d 91 [1st Dept 1998]).

Plaintiff's claims against Kuafu for express breach of plaintiff's contract with Horn must be dismissed, because there was no privity between plaintiff and Kuafu (see Kopelowitz & Co., Inc. v Mann, 83 AD3d 793, 797 [2d Dept 2011]). The claim of breach of a confidentiality agreement between Horn and the property sellers fails because, contrary to plaintiff's contention, there is no evidence that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary of that agreement (see Artwear, Inc. v Hughes, 202 AD2d 76, 81-82 [1st Dept 1994]).

Plaintiff's implied contract claim, which alleges that Kuafu appropriated plaintiff's labor when it entered and then cut Horn (and therefore plaintiff) out of the deal must also be dismissed (see generally Joseph P. Day Realty Corp. v Chera, 308 AD2d 148, 153 [1st Dept 2003]). Plaintiff, which was excluded from the transaction almost from the outset, was not a procuring cause of Kuafu's purchase (see SPRE Realty, Ltd. v Dienst, 119 AD3d 93, 97—98 [1st Dept 2014]). Moreover, there is no independent claim of bad faith against Kuafu, because Horn, not Kuafu, excluded plaintiff from the transaction as plaintiff's services were not needed. Plaintiff's exclusion occurred well before negotiations between Horn and sellers (and perforce Kuafu and sellers) were plainly and evidently reaching success (see Sibbald v Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 NY 378,385 [1881]; Aegis Prop. Servs. Corp. v Hotel Empire Corp., 106 AD2d 66, 75 [1st Dept 1985]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 6, 2018

CLERK