F.S. Marino Realty, Inc. v. Testa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

F.S. Marino Realty, Inc. v. Testa

283 A.D.2d 392, 724 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4692

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 392 (F.S. Marino Realty, Inc. v. Testa) 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

F.S. Marino Realty, Inc. v. Testa, 283 A.D.2d 392, 724 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (La Fauci, J.H.O.), entered May 8, 2000, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The agreement at issue provides for payment of a broker’s commission only “when, as and if title closes.” The agreement further contains an exception that if the seller willfully defaults in performance of the contract of sale, a commission will be due. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that it failed to prove that the seller was in willful default of the contract of sale for the subject property (cf., Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899; Levy v Lacey, 22 NY2d 271, 276).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, 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 broker’s commission, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (La Fauci, J.H.O.), entered May 8, 2000, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The agreement at issue provides for payment of a broker’s commission only “when, as and if title closes.” The agreement further contains an exception that if the seller willfully defaults in performance of the contract of sale, a commission will be due. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that it failed to prove that the seller was in willful default of the contract of sale for the subject property (cf., Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899; Levy v Lacey, 22 NY2d 271, 276).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 392, 724 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fs-marino-realty-inc-v-testa-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack