Coldwell Banker Hunt Kennedy v. Wolfson

69 A.D.3d 492, 892 N.Y.2d 758
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Defendant Wolfson’s affidavit raises issues of fact as to, inter alia, whether the e-mail exchanges relied on by plaintiff, which admittedly reflect agreement as to the selling price and commission rate, were intended by the parties to constitute the entire brokerage agreement; whether the parties also agreed, orally, that payment of the agreed-to commission was conditioned on a closing actually taking place; and whether defendants willfully defaulted on their contract of sale with the prospective purchaser of otherwise prevented the closing from taking place (see Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899 [1985]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Coldwell Banker Hunt Kennedy v. Wolfson, 69 A.D.3d 492, 892 N.Y.2d 758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

69 A.D.3d 492 (Coldwell Banker Hunt Kennedy v. Wolfson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sabre International Security, Ltd. v. Vulcan Capital Management, Inc.
95 A.D.3d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)