Hared Realty Corp. v. Esikoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hared Realty Corp. v. Esikoff

143 A.D.2d 730, 533 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10094

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 730 (Hared Realty Corp. v. Esikoff) 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

Hared Realty Corp. v. Esikoff, 143 A.D.2d 730, 533 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated May 1, 1987, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent a written brokerage agreement between the plaintiffs, as broker, and the defendant, as seller, the rule of Graff v Billet (64 NY2d 899) is inapplicable (see, Feinberg Bros. Agency v Berted Realty Co., 70 NY2d 828, 830-831). The trial court correctly determined that there were triable issues of fact, inter alia, regarding the terms of the oral agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant; whether the plaintiffs produced a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase on the seller’s terms; and whether the defendant’s failure to close the deal was wrongful, arbitrary or in bad faith (see, Lane — Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 44; Penzotti v Broda Mach. Co., 37 AD2d 340, 342; Kahn Assocs. v Maidman, 69 Misc 2d 90, 93, affd 38 AD2d 798, affd 30 NY2d 831). The subsequent letters from the broker to the seller presented further triable issues as to whether the broker and seller intended to make the commission contingent upon closing or [731]*731whether they agreed that the commission was already earned but that payment was deferred until the time of closing (see, Feinberg Bros. Agency v Berted Realty Co., supra, at 831). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Sullivan, 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 brokerage commission, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated May 1, 1987, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent a written brokerage agreement between the plaintiffs, as broker, and the defendant, as seller, the rule of Graff v Billet (64 NY2d 899) is inapplicable (see, Feinberg Bros. Agency v Berted Realty Co., 70 NY2d 828, 830-831). The trial court correctly determined that there were triable issues of fact, inter alia, regarding the terms of the oral agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant; whether the plaintiffs produced a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase on the seller’s terms; and whether the defendant’s failure to close the deal was wrongful, arbitrary or in bad faith (see, Lane — Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 44; Penzotti v Broda Mach. Co., 37 AD2d 340, 342; Kahn Assocs. v Maidman, 69 Misc 2d 90, 93, affd 38 AD2d 798, affd 30 NY2d 831). The subsequent letters from the broker to the seller presented further triable issues as to whether the broker and seller intended to make the commission contingent upon closing or [731]*731whether they agreed that the commission was already earned but that payment was deferred until the time of closing (see, Feinberg Bros. Agency v Berted Realty Co., supra, at 831). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 730, 533 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hared-realty-corp-v-esikoff-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack