Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh

232 A.D.2d 235, 647 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10090

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 235 (Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh) 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

Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh, 232 A.D.2d 235, 647 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered October 27, 1995, dismissing the action as against defendant Dime Savings Bank and bringing up for review an order of said court and Justice, which granted said defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly rejected plaintiffs-brokers’ claim that they earned a commission. Since the buyers introduced by plaintiffs elected not to sign the agreement offered by Dime on the latter’s terms, they were not ready, willing and able buyers (see, Lane—Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 42). That the same buyers successfully bid for the property at a foreclosure sale the next day does not avail plaintiffs.

[236]*236Moreover, plaintiffs are bound by the brokerage agreement signed by their agent, which conditioned entitlement to a commission upon the buyers’ execution of the assignment agreement (under which Dime would bid for the property and, if successful, would assign the bid to the proposed buyers), and the assignment actually being made. Neither condition was fulfilled and thus plaintiffs did not earn a commission pursuant to the brokerage agreement (see, supra, at 42-43; Graff v Billet, 101 AD2d 355, affd 64 NY2d 899). We reject plaintiffs’ claim of economic duress (see, Goldstein Prods. v Fish, 198 AD2d 137, 138). We have examined plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered October 27, 1995, dismissing the action as against defendant Dime Savings Bank and bringing up for review an order of said court and Justice, which granted said defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly rejected plaintiffs-brokers’ claim that they earned a commission. Since the buyers introduced by plaintiffs elected not to sign the agreement offered by Dime on the latter’s terms, they were not ready, willing and able buyers (see, Lane—Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 42). That the same buyers successfully bid for the property at a foreclosure sale the next day does not avail plaintiffs.

[236]*236Moreover, plaintiffs are bound by the brokerage agreement signed by their agent, which conditioned entitlement to a commission upon the buyers’ execution of the assignment agreement (under which Dime would bid for the property and, if successful, would assign the bid to the proposed buyers), and the assignment actually being made. Neither condition was fulfilled and thus plaintiffs did not earn a commission pursuant to the brokerage agreement (see, supra, at 42-43; Graff v Billet, 101 AD2d 355, affd 64 NY2d 899). We reject plaintiffs’ claim of economic duress (see, Goldstein Prods. v Fish, 198 AD2d 137, 138). We have examined plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 235, 647 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mautner-glick-corp-v-dime-savings-bank-of-williamsburgh-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack