Prime City Real Estate Co. v. Hardy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prime City Real Estate Co. v. Hardy

256 A.D.2d 80, 681 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13100

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 80 (Prime City Real Estate Co. v. Hardy) 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

Prime City Real Estate Co. v. Hardy, 256 A.D.2d 80, 681 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13100 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered September 23, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff damages in the principal amount of $100,000, plus interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover a broker’s commission for procuring a prospective buyer for defendants’ real property, plaintiff adduced ample evidence that defendants and the prospective buyer (Wasserman) procured by plaintiff agreed that the property would be sold for $4.1 million in cash, on an “as is” basis, with a $410,000 deposit to be paid on execution of the contract, conditioned on Wasserman’s verification of registration of rents and violations of record, which verification was carried out to Wasserman’s satisfaction. The principals, accordingly, agreed on the essential terms of the transaction (see, Mengel v Lawrence, 276 App Div 180, 181-182; Glassman Assocs. v Hallen Realty Corp., 37 Misc 2d 877, 879, affd 20 AD2d 759), and defendants’ subsequent receipt of an offer of a higher price did not entitle them to avoid paying plaintiff’s commission by refusing to negotiate the remaining details of the sale to Wasserman, thereby thwarting that transaction’s natural progress (Trylon Realty Corp. v Di Martini, 34 NY2d 899, 900, affg 40 AD2d 1029, 1030; Kirk Assocs. v McDonald Equities, 155 AD2d 281, 281-282, lv denied 75 NY2d 706). Wasserman’s financial ability to consummate the transaction was established by his testimony concerning his assets and access to credit, substantiated by a financial statement setting forth his bank accounts, securities and real estate holdings (see, Siegel v Liese, 23 AD2d 425, 426-427, affd 18 NY2d 930; Globerman v Lederer, 281 App Div 39, 42-43). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered September 23, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff damages in the principal amount of $100,000, plus interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover a broker’s commission for procuring a prospective buyer for defendants’ real property, plaintiff adduced ample evidence that defendants and the prospective buyer (Wasserman) procured by plaintiff agreed that the property would be sold for $4.1 million in cash, on an “as is” basis, with a $410,000 deposit to be paid on execution of the contract, conditioned on Wasserman’s verification of registration of rents and violations of record, which verification was carried out to Wasserman’s satisfaction. The principals, accordingly, agreed on the essential terms of the transaction (see, Mengel v Lawrence, 276 App Div 180, 181-182; Glassman Assocs. v Hallen Realty Corp., 37 Misc 2d 877, 879, affd 20 AD2d 759), and defendants’ subsequent receipt of an offer of a higher price did not entitle them to avoid paying plaintiff’s commission by refusing to negotiate the remaining details of the sale to Wasserman, thereby thwarting that transaction’s natural progress (Trylon Realty Corp. v Di Martini, 34 NY2d 899, 900, affg 40 AD2d 1029, 1030; Kirk Assocs. v McDonald Equities, 155 AD2d 281, 281-282, lv denied 75 NY2d 706). Wasserman’s financial ability to consummate the transaction was established by his testimony concerning his assets and access to credit, substantiated by a financial statement setting forth his bank accounts, securities and real estate holdings (see, Siegel v Liese, 23 AD2d 425, 426-427, affd 18 NY2d 930; Globerman v Lederer, 281 App Div 39, 42-43). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 80, 681 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prime-city-real-estate-co-v-hardy-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack