Century 21 Volpe Realty, Inc. v. Jhong Kim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Century 21 Volpe Realty, Inc. v. Jhong Kim

231 A.D.2d 667, 647 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 667 (Century 21 Volpe Realty, Inc. v. Jhong Kim) 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

Century 21 Volpe Realty, Inc. v. Jhong Kim, 231 A.D.2d 667, 647 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated May 8, 1995, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), entered December 3, 1992, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $48,000, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order of the Appellate Term is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the judgment of the Civil Court is reinstated.

The evidence adduced at trial established that the agreement for the sale of real estate (hereinafter the agreement) included the signatures of the defendant seller and the buyer, the purchase price, the address of the property, a closing date, and the terms of the purchase money mortgage that was to be held by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant testified that he agreed to those terms at the time of the signing of the agreement. Accordingly, the Civil Court correctly found that the agreement contained all the essential terms to be considered a valid and enforceable contract (see, General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; 160 Chambers St. Realty v Register of City of N. Y., 226 AD2d 606; 2M Realty Corp. v Boehm, 204 AD2d 620).

The record further supports the Civil Court’s finding that the defendant willfully breached the agreement and thus caused the failure of the transfer of title to the property at issue. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to its commission (see, Lane—Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 43; Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899, 901; Kaplon-Bello Assocs. v Tae Hee Kim, 145 AD2d 413). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Term is reversed, and the judgment of the Civil Court is reinstated. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Altman, 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 plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated May 8, 1995, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), entered December 3, 1992, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $48,000, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order of the Appellate Term is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the judgment of the Civil Court is reinstated.

The evidence adduced at trial established that the agreement for the sale of real estate (hereinafter the agreement) included the signatures of the defendant seller and the buyer, the purchase price, the address of the property, a closing date, and the terms of the purchase money mortgage that was to be held by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant testified that he agreed to those terms at the time of the signing of the agreement. Accordingly, the Civil Court correctly found that the agreement contained all the essential terms to be considered a valid and enforceable contract (see, General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; 160 Chambers St. Realty v Register of City of N. Y., 226 AD2d 606; 2M Realty Corp. v Boehm, 204 AD2d 620).

The record further supports the Civil Court’s finding that the defendant willfully breached the agreement and thus caused the failure of the transfer of title to the property at issue. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to its commission (see, Lane—Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 43; Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899, 901; Kaplon-Bello Assocs. v Tae Hee Kim, 145 AD2d 413). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Term is reversed, and the judgment of the Civil Court is reinstated. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 667, 647 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/century-21-volpe-realty-inc-v-jhong-kim-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack