B&H ASSOCIATES OF NEW YORK LLC, d/b/a PRUDENTIAL DOUGLAS ELLIMAN REAL ESTATE, plf-ap, v. ANDREA ACKERMAN, defres
9300. B&H ASSOCIATES OF NEW YORK LLC, d/b/a PRUDENTIAL DOUGLAS ELLIMAN REAL ESTATE, plf-ap, v. ANDREA ACKERMAN, defres — Cole Hansen Chester, LLP, New York (Michael S. Cole of counsel), for ap — Margolin & Pierce, LLP, New York (Errol F. Margolin of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered July 18, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The provision of the parties' April 25, 2007 letter agreement requiring plaintiff brokerage firm to pay defendant broker draws based on commissions (plural), which is not limited to any stated period of time, is ambiguous since it is subject to different interpretations (see Feldman v. National Westminster Bank, 303 AD2d 271 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 505 ). Defendant also established the existence of triable issues of fact, including whether plaintiff was the first to repudiate this provision of the parties' agreement.
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining claims and find them unavailing.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.