Murray Adler Realty Co. v. Benerofe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray Adler Realty Co. v. Benerofe

42 A.D.2d 715, 345 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3946

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 715 (Murray Adler Realty Co. v. Benerofe) 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

Murray Adler Realty Co. v. Benerofe, 42 A.D.2d 715, 345 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 22, 1972, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. In our view, no genuine .triable issues of fact exist which preclude the granting of defendant’s cross motion (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]). No meeting of the minds of the parties with respect to all the essential contract terms was ever reached and hence plaintiff is not entitled, to a brokerage commission (Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378, 382; Kaelin v. Warner, 27 N Y 2d 352; Matter of Attn, 274 App. Div. 894, affd. 300 N. Y. 607). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 22, 1972, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. In our view, no genuine .triable issues of fact exist which preclude the granting of defendant’s cross motion (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]). No meeting of the minds of the parties with respect to all the essential contract terms was ever reached and hence plaintiff is not entitled, to a brokerage commission (Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378, 382; Kaelin v. Warner, 27 N Y 2d 352; Matter of Attn, 274 App. Div. 894, affd. 300 N. Y. 607). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 715, 345 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-adler-realty-co-v-benerofe-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack