Gumley Haft Kleier, Inc. v. Bildirici

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gumley Haft Kleier, Inc. v. Bildirici

301 A.D.2d 390, 753 N.Y.S.2d 81, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 120

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 390 (Gumley Haft Kleier, Inc. v. Bildirici) 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

Gumley Haft Kleier, Inc. v. Bildirici, 301 A.D.2d 390, 753 N.Y.S.2d 81, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered July 18, 2001, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ brokerage agreement provided, in relevant part, that a commission “shall be payable at closing of title” but that defendant seller would be liable for plaintiff broker’s commission, even if the transaction did not close, if the failure to close was attributable to defendant’s willful default. The evidence on the motion established that although defendant signed the underlying contract for the sale of his apartment, the transaction did not close because the buyer stopped payment of his deposit check and refused to proceed to closing. Accordingly, inasmuch as the failure to close was not the consequence of any willful default on defendant’s part, no commission was due under the subject brokerage agreement and the award of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper (see Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899). Concur — Buckley, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered July 18, 2001, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ brokerage agreement provided, in relevant part, that a commission “shall be payable at closing of title” but that defendant seller would be liable for plaintiff broker’s commission, even if the transaction did not close, if the failure to close was attributable to defendant’s willful default. The evidence on the motion established that although defendant signed the underlying contract for the sale of his apartment, the transaction did not close because the buyer stopped payment of his deposit check and refused to proceed to closing. Accordingly, inasmuch as the failure to close was not the consequence of any willful default on defendant’s part, no commission was due under the subject brokerage agreement and the award of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper (see Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899). Concur — Buckley, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 390, 753 N.Y.S.2d 81, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gumley-haft-kleier-inc-v-bildirici-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack