Douglas Elliman, LLC v. East Coast Realtors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Douglas Elliman, LLC v. East Coast Realtors, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 2932, 149 A.D.3d 544, 52 N.Y.S.3d 351

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

DecidedApril 18, 2017

Docket3746 160945/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2932 (Douglas Elliman, LLC v. East Coast Realtors, Inc.) 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

Douglas Elliman, LLC v. East Coast Realtors, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 2932, 149 A.D.3d 544, 52 N.Y.S.3d 351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2016, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Given that plaintiff represented on the New York State Disclosure Form that it was the buyers’ agent, it could not deny that it had an express contract with buyers covering the subject matter of this action (see Real Property Law § 443 [1] [c]; Julien J. Studley, Inc. v New York News, 70 NY2d 628, 629 [1987]). The existence of such an agreement was fatal to plaintiff’s quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

Moreover, the mere listing of the property on the consumer site Streeteasy.com, which by its terms precludes the use of the site other than for the provision of information on listings, and which ad contained no solicitation of any kind for any other broker, could not constitute any offer to plaintiff. Thus, the work plaintiff did, which was for the buyers, was not done at defendant’s behest. This was fatal to both of its quasi contractual claims (see Kagan v K-Tel Entertainment, 172 AD2d 375, 376 [1st Dept 1991]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2016, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Given that plaintiff represented on the New York State Disclosure Form that it was the buyers’ agent, it could not deny that it had an express contract with buyers covering the subject matter of this action (see Real Property Law § 443 [1] [c]; Julien J. Studley, Inc. v New York News, 70 NY2d 628, 629 [1987]). The existence of such an agreement was fatal to plaintiff’s quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

Moreover, the mere listing of the property on the consumer site Streeteasy.com, which by its terms precludes the use of the site other than for the provision of information on listings, and which ad contained no solicitation of any kind for any other broker, could not constitute any offer to plaintiff. Thus, the work plaintiff did, which was for the buyers, was not done at defendant’s behest. This was fatal to both of its quasi contractual claims (see Kagan v K-Tel Entertainment, 172 AD2d 375, 376 [1st Dept 1991]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2932, 149 A.D.3d 544, 52 N.Y.S.3d 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-elliman-llc-v-east-coast-realtors-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack