Linda M. Kirk Associates, Ltd. v. McDonald Equities, Inc.

155 A.D.2d 281, 547 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13830
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 281 (Linda M. Kirk Associates, Ltd. v. McDonald Equities, Inc.) 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
Linda M. Kirk Associates, Ltd. v. McDonald Equities, Inc., 155 A.D.2d 281, 547 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman A. Mordue, J.), entered July 25, 1988, awarding plaintiff damages including costs and interest of $79,326.25, following a nonjury trial for brokerage commissions, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff broker sued defendant property owner to recover a brokerage commission on the ground that she brought about a meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the transaction, but defendant then refused to sell the property. Defendant contends that the prospective purchaser was not specifically identified and was not shown to be financially able to purchase the property. However, the trial record is clear as to the identity of the purchaser and his financial ability to consummate the deal.

Defendant also contends that there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms, as the only matter agreed upon was price. However, the record shows that agreement was reached not only on price, but on the cash component of the price, the [282]*282specifics of a second mortgage, and payment of the broker’s commissions by the purchaser. Failure to agree on a closing date is not fatal, as the law will presume the closing will take place within a reasonable time (Tobias v Lynch, 233 NY 515). A broker may recover a commission where a seller capriciously refuses to discuss missing terms of a sale and thwarts its natural progress by wrongfully refusing to proceed (Mengel v Lawrence, 276 App Div 180). The trial record is clear that the prospective purchaser agreed to all terms set forth by defendant, which cannot escape the obligation to pay a commission because the contract was not finalized only because defendant decided not to proceed. Concur — Ross, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Simpson v. 1147 Dean, LLC
116 A.D.3d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Omar v. Rozen
55 A.D.3d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Eastern Consolidated Properties, Inc. v. Lucas
285 A.D.2d 421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Prime City Real Estate Co. v. Hardy
256 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Agawam Realty, Ltd. v. Haggerty
223 A.D.2d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
French v. Ahlstrom
204 A.D.2d 861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 A.D.2d 281, 547 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linda-m-kirk-associates-ltd-v-mcdonald-equities-inc-nyappdiv-1989.