Majority
In an action, inter alia, to recover a real estate broker’s commission, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tarantino, Jr., J.), entered May 15, 2013, which, upon a decision of the same court entered April 15, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against it, dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
“In reviewing a determination rendered after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (Palombo Group v Poughkeepsie City Sch. Dist., 125 AD3d 620 , 621 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bed-ford, 60 NY2d 492 , 499 [1983]). “ ‘Where [the trial court’s] findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed to the trial court’s credibility determinations’ ” (Gomez v Eleni, LLC, 122 AD3d 797 , 798 [2014], quoting Papovitch v Papovitch, 84 AD3d 1045 , 1046 [2011]).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover a real estate broker’s commission
The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the causes of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, and unjust enrichment. “Tortious interference with contract requires the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party, defendant’s knowledge of that contract, defendant’s intentional procurement of the third-party’s breach of the contract without justification, actual breach of the contract, and damages resulting therefrom” (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413 , 424 [1996]). “To make out a claim [of] tortious interference with business relationships, a plaintiff must show that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s business relationships either with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or by means that were unlawful or improper” (Qosina Corp. v C & N Packaging, Inc., 96 AD3d 1032 , 1034 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “The basis of a claim for unjust enrichment is that the defendant has obtained a benefit which in equity and good conscience should be paid to the plaintiff” (Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 NY3d 777 , 790 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that there was a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party, that the defendants acted with malice or by means that were unlawful or improper, or that equity and good conscience required the broker’s commission to be paid to the plaintiff.
Rivera, J.R, Dickerson, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Palombo Group v. Poughkeepsie City School District 125 AD3d 620 at 621 p. 507
- Northern Westchester Professional Park Associates v. Town of Bedford 60 NY2d 492 at 499 p. 507
- Gomez v. Eleni, LLC 122 AD3d 797 at 798 p. 507
- Papovitch v. Papovitch 84 AD3d 1045 at 1046 p. 507
- Cusumano Associates, Inc. v. Politoski 118 AD3d 936 at 937 p. 508
- Poznanski v. Wang 84 AD3d 1048 at 1049 p. 508
- Greene v. Hellman 51 NY2d 197 at 205-207 p. 508
- Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co. 83 NY 378 at 382 p. 508
- Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc. 88 NY2d 413 at 424 p. 508
- Qosina Corp. v. C & N Packaging, Inc. 96 AD3d 1032 at 1034 p. 508
- Corsello v. Verizon New York, Inc. 18 NY3d 777 at 790 p. 508