Parker Realty Group, Inc. v. Petigny

New York Court of Appeals

Parker Realty Group, Inc. v. Petigny

929 N.E.2d 387, 14 N.Y.3d 864, 903 N.Y.S.2d 325

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 2010

Docket139 SSM 14

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 929 N.E.2d 387 (Parker Realty Group, Inc. v. Petigny) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker Realty Group, Inc. v. Petigny, 929 N.E.2d 387, 14 N.Y.3d 864, 903 N.Y.S.2d 325 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Recovery under the theory of quantum meruit is

*866 not appropriate where, as here, an express contract governed the subject matter involved (Miller v Schloss, 218 NY 400, 406-407 [1916]; see also Julien J. Studley, Inc. v New York News, 70 NY2d 628, 629 [1987]). Additionally, plaintiff failed to establish that the parties modified their exclusive brokerage agreement. In the absence of a valid governing exclusive brokerage agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to a commission on the sale to the ultimate buyer, as it was not the procuring cause of the sale (see Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206 [1980]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Recovery under the theory of quantum meruit is

*866 not appropriate where, as here, an express contract governed the subject matter involved (Miller v Schloss, 218 NY 400, 406-407 [1916]; see also Julien J. Studley, Inc. v New York News, 70 NY2d 628, 629 [1987]). Additionally, plaintiff failed to establish that the parties modified their exclusive brokerage agreement. In the absence of a valid governing exclusive brokerage agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to a commission on the sale to the ultimate buyer, as it was not the procuring cause of the sale (see Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206 [1980]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

929 N.E.2d 387, 14 N.Y.3d 864, 903 N.Y.S.2d 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-realty-group-inc-v-petigny-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack