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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 11, 1988·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] whether 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] whether 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.

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

143 A.D.2d 730 (Hared Realty Corp. v. Esikoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related