NRT New York LLC v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NRT New York LLC v. Johnson

142 A.D.3d 825, 37 N.Y.S.3d 438

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 2016

Docket1200 154415/15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 825 (NRT New York LLC v. Johnson) 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

NRT New York LLC v. Johnson, 142 A.D.3d 825, 37 N.Y.S.3d 438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered November 10, 2015, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon a search of the record, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

The exclusive brokerage agreement unambiguously made the closing of title an express condition precedent to plaintiff broker’s right to its commission (see Corcoran Group v Morris, 107 AD2d 622, 623-624 [1st Dept 1985], affd 64 NY2d 1034 [1985]). No closing ever took place, either before or after the agreement terminated, which passed title to any buyer identified during the term of the agreement. Nor did the Board of Managers for the condominium take title. The closing on the *826 sale of the apartment took place after the exclusive broker agreement expired and with an entity/person who was, in any event, a carve out under the agreement. Plaintiff is not entitled to a commission.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered November 10, 2015, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon a search of the record, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

The exclusive brokerage agreement unambiguously made the closing of title an express condition precedent to plaintiff broker’s right to its commission (see Corcoran Group v Morris, 107 AD2d 622, 623-624 [1st Dept 1985], affd 64 NY2d 1034 [1985]). No closing ever took place, either before or after the agreement terminated, which passed title to any buyer identified during the term of the agreement. Nor did the Board of Managers for the condominium take title. The closing on the *826 sale of the apartment took place after the exclusive broker agreement expired and with an entity/person who was, in any event, a carve out under the agreement. Plaintiff is not entitled to a commission.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 825, 37 N.Y.S.3d 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nrt-new-york-llc-v-johnson-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack