Sharon Ava & Co. v. Olympic Tower Associates

Judg

The IAS Court correctly determined that plaintiff was not licensed either at the time of the activities that purportedly generated the right to a commission or at the time the lease transaction was consummated and that plaintiff was, accordingly, barred, pursuant to Real Property Law § 442-d, from commencing the instant action to recover a commission for having brokered the lease transaction (see, Galbreath-Ruffin Corp. v 40th & 3rd Corp., 19 NY2d 354 , 362-363). The fact that plaintiff company’s president, Sharon Satlin-Shahar, was a licensed broker at the time of the transaction does not save the cause of action on behalf of the corporation (see, Hudson Michael Realty v Oliner, 184 AD2d 929 ; Philip Mehler Realty v Kayser, 176 AD2d 104 , lv dismissed 79 NY2d 977 ; Rogovin v Bach Realty, 147 AD2d 364 ). Nor was the court’s denial of plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint to substitute Ms. Satlin-Shahar as plaintiff in error. While amendment of a pleading should ordinarily be freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]), it may be denied where the proposed amended cause is plainly lacking in merit (see Daniels v Empire-Orr, Inc., 151 AD2d 370 ). Here, the proposed amendment would not have rendered the cause for a commission viable, for although Ms. Satlin-Shahar was plaintiffs president and, at least purportedly, its alter ego, the record clearly demonstrates that she was not the procuring cause of the lease. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.