Mautner Glick Corp. v. Edward Lee Cave, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mautner Glick Corp. v. Edward Lee Cave, Inc.

157 A.D.2d 594, 550 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 542

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 594 (Mautner Glick Corp. v. Edward Lee Cave, 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

Mautner Glick Corp. v. Edward Lee Cave, Inc., 157 A.D.2d 594, 550 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 14, 1989, which granted defendants-respondents Edward Lee Cave, Inc., Robert Higginson, Betty Higginson, Douglas Elliman-Gibbons and Ives, Inc. (DEGI) and Nassid Lahoud’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action for breach of contract as to defendant Lahoud only, and which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action for conspiracy to tortiously interfere with plaintiffs’ contract with defendant-respondent Edward Lee Cave, Inc., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants conspired to tortiously interfere with a cobrokerage agreement between plaintiffs and defendant-respondent Edward Lee Cave, Inc. However, as stated in Israel v Wood Dolson Co. (1 NY2d 116, 120), as a predicate to a right of recovery for tortious interference with the performance of a contract, the following four requirements must be met: a valid contract must be shown to exist; defendants must be shown to have known of the contract; defendants must be shown to have intentionally procured the breach of that contract; and damages flowing from that interference must be shown. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that either the Higginsons or DEGI knew of the cobrokerage agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant-respondent Edward Lee Cave, Inc.

Plaintiffs have also failed to show that they would have been entitled to á brokerage commission. To sustain an award of commissions on a brokerage contract, a plaintiff broker must show substantially more than that he "initially called the property to the attention of the ultimate purchaser” (Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 205). To be entitled to a commission, a broker must demonstrate that he was the "procuring cause of the sale * * * [bringing] together the 'minds of the buyer and seller’ ” (Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d, supra, at 206; see also, Sibbald v Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 NY 378). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 14, 1989, which granted defendants-respondents Edward Lee Cave, Inc., Robert Higginson, Betty Higginson, Douglas Elliman-Gibbons and Ives, Inc. (DEGI) and Nassid Lahoud’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action for breach of contract as to defendant Lahoud only, and which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action for conspiracy to tortiously interfere with plaintiffs’ contract with defendant-respondent Edward Lee Cave, Inc., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants conspired to tortiously interfere with a cobrokerage agreement between plaintiffs and defendant-respondent Edward Lee Cave, Inc. However, as stated in Israel v Wood Dolson Co. (1 NY2d 116, 120), as a predicate to a right of recovery for tortious interference with the performance of a contract, the following four requirements must be met: a valid contract must be shown to exist; defendants must be shown to have known of the contract; defendants must be shown to have intentionally procured the breach of that contract; and damages flowing from that interference must be shown. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that either the Higginsons or DEGI knew of the cobrokerage agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant-respondent Edward Lee Cave, Inc.

Plaintiffs have also failed to show that they would have been entitled to á brokerage commission. To sustain an award of commissions on a brokerage contract, a plaintiff broker must show substantially more than that he "initially called the property to the attention of the ultimate purchaser” (Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 205). To be entitled to a commission, a broker must demonstrate that he was the "procuring cause of the sale * * * [bringing] together the 'minds of the buyer and seller’ ” (Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d, supra, at 206; see also, Sibbald v Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 NY 378). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 594, 550 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mautner-glick-corp-v-edward-lee-cave-inc-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack