Nadboy v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nadboy v. Kaplan

162 A.D.2d 666

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

DecidedJune 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 666 (Nadboy v. Kaplan) 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

Nadboy v. Kaplan, 162 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission pursuant to a written agreement, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered May 1, 1989, which, upon the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $21,750.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, brought about the sale of the defendants’ house as explicitly acknowledged in a rider to the contract of sale. The defendants also executed a commission agreement which provided that the plaintiff would be entitled to her commission at the time of closing. Even accepting as true the defendants’ assertions made in their answer and counterclaims that the plaintiff improperly placed a sign on the premises indicating that she had an exclusive listing, when in fact, the house was listed on a multiple listing, and that the plaintiff improperly listed the house as being located in Melville, when in fact, it is located in Huntington, the defendants failed to establish that they were damaged by her actions. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to her commission (see, Ambrose Mar-Elia Co. v Dinstein, 151 AD2d 416), and summary judgment was properly granted. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission pursuant to a written agreement, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered May 1, 1989, which, upon the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $21,750.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, brought about the sale of the defendants’ house as explicitly acknowledged in a rider to the contract of sale. The defendants also executed a commission agreement which provided that the plaintiff would be entitled to her commission at the time of closing. Even accepting as true the defendants’ assertions made in their answer and counterclaims that the plaintiff improperly placed a sign on the premises indicating that she had an exclusive listing, when in fact, the house was listed on a multiple listing, and that the plaintiff improperly listed the house as being located in Melville, when in fact, it is located in Huntington, the defendants failed to establish that they were damaged by her actions. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to her commission (see, Ambrose Mar-Elia Co. v Dinstein, 151 AD2d 416), and summary judgment was properly granted. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nadboy-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack