| CB Richard Ellis-Buffalo, LLC v Kunvarji Hotels, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03037 [94 AD3d 1458] |
| April 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| CB Richard Ellis-Buffalo, LLC, Appellant, v Kunvarji Hotels, Inc.,et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Damon Morey LLP, Buffalo (Brian D. Gwitt of counsel), fordefendants-respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered July21, 2011 in a breach of contract action. The order, inter alia, granted defendants' motion todismiss plaintiff's complaint.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff, a real estate broker, commenced this action seeking to recover thecommission allegedly due for services it provided to defendants in connection with the lease ofcommercial real property by defendant Kunvarji Hotels, Inc. (KHI). Supreme Court properlygranted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion seekingpartial summary judgment on liability with respect to the breach of contract and quantum meruitcauses of action. Pursuant to CPLR 213, a six-year limitations period applies to the causes ofaction premised upon breach of contract (see Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81NY2d 399, 402-403 [1993]), quantum meruit (see Erdheim v Gelfman, 303 AD2d 714,714 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 514 [2003]), and unjust enrichment (see Sirico v F.G.G. Prods., Inc., 71AD3d 429, 434 [2010]). Each of those causes of action accrued when plaintiff earned itscommission, i.e., the date on which KHI and the tenant executed the lease agreement (seeFeinberg Bros. Agency v Berted Realty Co., 70 NY2d 828, 830 [1987]; Gronich & Co. v649 Broadway Equities Co., 169 AD2d 600, 602 [1991]). The lease agreement was executedin January 2005 and the instant action was commenced more than six years later, on February 23,2011. Thus, the causes of action at issue are time-barred.
The court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion on the further ground that issue had notbeen joined (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Matter of Estate of Jason v Herdman, 70 AD3d 1382 [2010]).Finally, we note that plaintiff has not raised any contention in its brief concerning the dismissalof the two remaining causes of action, and thus it has abandoned any issues with respect thereto(see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 984 [1994]). Present—Centra,J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.