Industrial & Commercial Realty Associates Co. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

68 A.D.2d 853, 414 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11058
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 1979·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 22, 1978, granting plaintiff-respondent’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent that leave to include the proposed third cause of action therein is denied and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The proposed third cause of action does not allege an express, special contract to act solely as a finder, but rather seeks recovery on an implied promise, a theory this court heretofore rejected as insufficient to sustain a real estate broker’s claim to recover a finder’s fee. (Industrial & Commercial Realty Assoc. Co. v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 60 AD2d 527.) Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Yesawich and Bloom, JJ.

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

Industrial & Commercial Realty Associates Co. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 68 A.D.2d 853, 414 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

68 A.D.2d 853 (Industrial & Commercial Realty Associates Co. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Excel Realty Advisors, LP v. Engel Burman Group, LLC
134 A.D.3d 668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Futterman Organization, Inc. v. Bridgemarket Associates L.P.
278 A.D.2d 105 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)