Cherveny v. Daniele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cherveny v. Daniele

54 A.D.2d 889, 387 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14706

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 889 (Cherveny v. Daniele) 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

Cherveny v. Daniele, 54 A.D.2d 889, 387 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, defendant Anthony Daniele appeals (by permission), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated January 16, 1976, as affirmed a judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County, Fifth District, entered January 29, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of plaintiff and against him. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Plaintiff and appellant entered into a brokerage agreement concerning the sale of premises known as 83 Loop Drive, Sayville, New York. Plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, secured a ready, willing and able purchaser, as evidenced by the contract of sale executed by appellant and the purchaser (see Gelardin v Flomarcy Co., 267 App Div 464). Appellant’s reliance upon the letter dated April 8, 1974, which contained the phrase "to be paid only as, if and when title closes”, is misplaced since the failure to close title was the result of an agreement between him and the purchaser. Appellant gave a release to the purchaser upon the latter’s payment to him of $1,600. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, defendant Anthony Daniele appeals (by permission), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated January 16, 1976, as affirmed a judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County, Fifth District, entered January 29, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of plaintiff and against him. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Plaintiff and appellant entered into a brokerage agreement concerning the sale of premises known as 83 Loop Drive, Sayville, New York. Plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, secured a ready, willing and able purchaser, as evidenced by the contract of sale executed by appellant and the purchaser (see Gelardin v Flomarcy Co., 267 App Div 464). Appellant’s reliance upon the letter dated April 8, 1974, which contained the phrase "to be paid only as, if and when title closes”, is misplaced since the failure to close title was the result of an agreement between him and the purchaser. Appellant gave a release to the purchaser upon the latter’s payment to him of $1,600. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 889, 387 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherveny-v-daniele-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack