Maurice B. Cunningham, Inc. v. Nugent Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maurice B. Cunningham, Inc. v. Nugent Street Corp.

202 A.D.2d 649, 610 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2990

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 649 (Maurice B. Cunningham, Inc. v. Nugent Street Corp.) 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

Maurice B. Cunningham, Inc. v. Nugent Street Corp., 202 A.D.2d 649, 610 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover a broker’s commission, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated April 16, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The brokerage agreement here provides for payment of a broker’s commission "if and when title passes”. "[S]ince no deal between the prospective purchaser and the seller ever materialized in legal, written form, the seller could not be in default of the broker’s agreement and was free until then to negotiate with other prospective purchasers without becoming liable for a commission” (Graff v Billet, 101 AD2d 355, 356-357, affd 64 NY2d 899). The defendants’ motion is therefore granted, and the complaint is dismissed. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover a broker’s commission, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated April 16, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The brokerage agreement here provides for payment of a broker’s commission "if and when title passes”. "[S]ince no deal between the prospective purchaser and the seller ever materialized in legal, written form, the seller could not be in default of the broker’s agreement and was free until then to negotiate with other prospective purchasers without becoming liable for a commission” (Graff v Billet, 101 AD2d 355, 356-357, affd 64 NY2d 899). The defendants’ motion is therefore granted, and the complaint is dismissed. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 649, 610 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-b-cunningham-inc-v-nugent-street-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack