Filed Date: 9/19/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered January 18, 1995, which granted plaintiffs motion to reargue a prior order which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and, upon reargument, denied such mo
Plaintiff’s motion for reargument was timely (see, Delcrete Corp. v Kling, 67 AD2d 1099), and properly granted. The motion for summary judgment was properly denied on the ground that issues of fact exist including, inter alia, whether a prospective purchaser produced by plaintiff had reached agreement on the essential terms of the contract with the seller (see, Fogel v Rob Realty, 204 AD2d 135), such that plaintiff was entitled to a brokerage commission (see, Mosely Assocs. v New Yorker Mag., 135 AD2d 456). The court did not improperly refuse to compel the depositions defendants seek absent a reasonable excuse for not having undertaken such activity before the case was put on the calendar or a showing of subsequently developing unusual or unanticipated circumstances (see, Price v Bloomingdale’s, 166 AD2d 151). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.