| Glynos v Dorizas |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03414 [106 AD3d 480] |
| May 14, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| David Glynos, Respondent, v Andreas Dorizas,Appellant. |
—[*1] Koulikourdis & Associates, Bronx (Peter John Koulikourdis of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered July 18, 2012,which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion todismiss plaintiff's cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, withcosts.
The court properly determined that the action is not barred by Real Property Law§ 442-d, which provides that an unlicensed person may not bring an action torecover a commission for facilitating the sale of real estate. The contract between theparties did not provide for plaintiff, who is not a licensed real estate broker, to receive acommission based on the sale of the property. Rather, it provided that, upon the sale ofthe property at a specified minimum selling price, plaintiff would be paid a bonus for,inter alia, past management services rendered by him. In addition, although plaintiff wasmotivated to see the property sell above the minimum price, he was not the procuringcause of the real estate transaction. Defendant retained and paid a real estate broker tosell the property (seeTransaction Advisory Servs., LLC v Silver Bar Holding, LLC, 38 AD3d 241[1st Dept 2007]; Kavian vVernah Homes Co., 19 AD3d 649 [1st Dept 2005]).
The court also properly determined that plaintiff's breach of contract claim was notbarred by the statute of limitations. The alleged breach for nonpayment under the termsof the contract did not occur until the property was sold, less than six years before theaction was [*2]commenced (see CPLR 213;Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399, 402 [1993]).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unpreservedand unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Clark, JJ.