The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court ruling in a commercial real estate dispute between Chalpin Realty SC, LLC and Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services Inc., according to a summary order issued Feb. 4, 2026.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs, Pierre N. Leval, and Richard J. Sullivan, upheld the Feb. 24, 2025 order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Valerie Caproni presided over the lower court proceedings.
The case, designated as No. 25-669, involved Chalpin Realty SC, LLC as the petitioner-appellant challenging the district court's ruling against Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services Inc., which served as the respondent-appellee.
The Second Circuit's decision came in the form of a summary order, a type of ruling that carries specific limitations under federal court procedures. According to the court's notice, summary orders do not establish precedential effect, meaning they cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. However, citation to summary orders filed after Jan. 1, 2007, is permitted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and the Second Circuit's Local Rule 32.1.1.
When attorneys cite summary orders in court documents, they must reference either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database and include the notation "SUMMARY ORDER." Additionally, any party citing a summary order must serve a copy to parties not represented by counsel.
The oral arguments and proceedings took place at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse at 40 Foley Square in New York City. The courthouse serves as the primary venue for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
Representing Chalpin Realty SC, LLC were attorneys Ryan O. Miller from Kishner Miller Himes P.C. in New York, along with Scott M. Himes and Rachel K. Marcoccia, who appeared on the brief. The respondent Marcus & Millichap was represented by Allan A. Joseph from Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph in Miami, Florida, with Miguel J. Chamorro also on the brief. Additional counsel Evan Newman from Jacobowitz Newman Tversky LLP in Cedarhurst, New York, also appeared for the respondent.
The dispute appears to center on commercial real estate matters involving Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services Inc., a prominent national commercial real estate brokerage firm that specializes in investment sales, financing, research, and advisory services. The company operates across multiple markets and handles various types of commercial properties including retail, office, industrial, and multifamily assets.
While the specific details of the underlying dispute were not detailed in the summary order, the case originated in the Southern District of New York, which frequently handles complex commercial litigation involving real estate transactions, investment services, and business disputes.
The affirmance by the Second Circuit means that whatever relief or ruling Judge Caproni granted in favor of Marcus & Millichap in February 2025 will stand. The appellate court's brief order stating that the district court decision is "AFFIRMED" indicates the panel found no reversible error in the lower court's handling of the case.
The timing of the appeal follows typical federal court procedures, with the case moving from the district court's February 2025 ruling to the appellate court's February 2026 decision, representing approximately a one-year appellate process.
For Chalpin Realty SC, LLC, the affirmance represents the end of the appellate process unless the company decides to petition the Supreme Court for review, though the high court grants certiorari in only a small percentage of cases.
The case adds to the body of commercial real estate litigation in federal courts, though its summary order status limits its precedential value for future disputes. Commercial real estate cases often involve complex contractual disputes, commission arrangements, fiduciary duties, and professional service agreements.
The Second Circuit's decision to resolve the matter through summary order rather than a published opinion suggests the court viewed the legal issues as sufficiently straightforward that they did not require extended analysis or precedential guidance for future cases.
Marcus & Millichap's successful defense at both the district and appellate levels demonstrates the strength of their legal position in whatever dispute gave rise to the litigation. The company continues to operate as a major player in commercial real estate investment services across the United States.