B & H Associates v. Buscemi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

B & H Associates v. Buscemi

229 A.D.2d 456, 645 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7766

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 456 (B & H Associates v. Buscemi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B & H Associates v. Buscemi, 229 A.D.2d 456, 645 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated May 25, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs

"It is well established that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker will be deemed to have earned his commission when he produces a purchaser who is [457]*457ready, willing and able to purchase at the seller’s terms” (Henri-Lynn Realty v Huang, 159 AD2d 486; see, Rusciano Realty Servs. v Griffler, 62 NY2d 696). The plaintiffs showed that they produced a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to purchase the appellants’ property on their terms. Therefore, the court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated May 25, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs

"It is well established that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker will be deemed to have earned his commission when he produces a purchaser who is [457]*457ready, willing and able to purchase at the seller’s terms” (Henri-Lynn Realty v Huang, 159 AD2d 486; see, Rusciano Realty Servs. v Griffler, 62 NY2d 696). The plaintiffs showed that they produced a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to purchase the appellants’ property on their terms. Therefore, the court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 456, 645 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-h-associates-v-buscemi-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack