Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, L. L. C. v. Safari Development Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, L. L. C. v. Safari Development Co.

281 A.D.2d 211, 721 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2218

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 211 (Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, L. L. C. v. Safari Development Co.) 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

Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, L. L. C. v. Safari Development Co., 281 A.D.2d 211, 721 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 25, 2000, after a nonjury trial, in an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the principal amount of $400,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While the record shows that the prospective buyer procured by plaintiff was willing to assist defendant in effecting a like-kind exchange of the subject condominium unit, a clear preponderance of the evidence shows that the proposed sale was not contingent upon defendant’s ability to consummate a like-kind exchange. The original, written brokerage agreement between plaintiff and defendant’s predecessor contained no such contingency; the letter of intent prepared by defendant’s attorney and signed by the prospective buyer made no reference to any such contingency; and the draft like-kind exchange agreement also prepared by defendant’s attorney clearly provided that the transaction was to go forward even if a suitable exchange property could not be acquired. We have considered defendant’s other arguments, including that the person procured by plaintiff was not a ready, willing and able buyer, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 25, 2000, after a nonjury trial, in an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the principal amount of $400,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While the record shows that the prospective buyer procured by plaintiff was willing to assist defendant in effecting a like-kind exchange of the subject condominium unit, a clear preponderance of the evidence shows that the proposed sale was not contingent upon defendant’s ability to consummate a like-kind exchange. The original, written brokerage agreement between plaintiff and defendant’s predecessor contained no such contingency; the letter of intent prepared by defendant’s attorney and signed by the prospective buyer made no reference to any such contingency; and the draft like-kind exchange agreement also prepared by defendant’s attorney clearly provided that the transaction was to go forward even if a suitable exchange property could not be acquired. We have considered defendant’s other arguments, including that the person procured by plaintiff was not a ready, willing and able buyer, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 211, 721 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-harris-stevens-residential-sales-l-l-c-v-safari-development-co-nyappdiv-2001.