Dwight-Helmsley, Inc. v. Myron Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dwight-Helmsley, Inc. v. Myron Realty Co.

273 A.D. 948, 78 N.Y.S.2d 69

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

DecidedApril 12, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 948 (Dwight-Helmsley, Inc. v. Myron Realty 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

Dwight-Helmsley, Inc. v. Myron Realty Co., 273 A.D. 948, 78 N.Y.S.2d 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There undoubtedly would have been a triable issue as to whether or not there was consideration for the co-brokerage agreement if the agreement had been oral. That agreement, however, is in writing and signed by the party sought to be charged therewith. The absence of consideration therefore does not affect its validity (Real Property Law, § 279; Personal Property Law, § 33). The only issue raised by the opposing affidavits is the absence of consideration. There is nothing set forth on which to base a claim of fraud or duress in the signing of the agreement.

The order should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted.

Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

There undoubtedly would have been a triable issue as to whether or not there was consideration for the co-brokerage agreement if the agreement had been oral. That agreement, however, is in writing and signed by the party sought to be charged therewith. The absence of consideration therefore does not affect its validity (Real Property Law, § 279; Personal Property Law, § 33). The only issue raised by the opposing affidavits is the absence of consideration. There is nothing set forth on which to base a claim of fraud or duress in the signing of the agreement.

The order should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted.

Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 948, 78 N.Y.S.2d 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwight-helmsley-inc-v-myron-realty-co-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack