R. L. Freidland Realty, Inc. v. Modern Cabinet Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R. L. Freidland Realty, Inc. v. Modern Cabinet Corp.

128 A.D.2d 510, 512 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44202

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 510 (R. L. Freidland Realty, Inc. v. Modern Cabinet Corp.) 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

R. L. Freidland Realty, Inc. v. Modern Cabinet Corp., 128 A.D.2d 510, 512 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), entered September 5, 1985, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Special Term erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants since the plaintiff has raised sufficient triable issues of fact to withstand a motion for such relief (see, Elzer v Nassau County, 111 AD2d 212). In the first instance, contrary to Special Term’s conclusion, a question of fact exists as to [511]*511whether the parties to the underlying real estate transaction were mistaken as to the exact property which was to be conveyed and whether this alleged misunderstanding was the result of the plaintiff’s conduct as broker. A second issue of fact exists as to whether the defendants acted in bad faith in preventing the consummation of the sale of the subject premises, thereby preventing the plaintiff from recovering the brokerage commission (see, Albert B. Ash forth, Inc. v Houghton, 108 AD2d 686). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Eiber and Sullivan, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), entered September 5, 1985, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Special Term erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants since the plaintiff has raised sufficient triable issues of fact to withstand a motion for such relief (see, Elzer v Nassau County, 111 AD2d 212). In the first instance, contrary to Special Term’s conclusion, a question of fact exists as to [511]*511whether the parties to the underlying real estate transaction were mistaken as to the exact property which was to be conveyed and whether this alleged misunderstanding was the result of the plaintiff’s conduct as broker. A second issue of fact exists as to whether the defendants acted in bad faith in preventing the consummation of the sale of the subject premises, thereby preventing the plaintiff from recovering the brokerage commission (see, Albert B. Ash forth, Inc. v Houghton, 108 AD2d 686). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 510, 512 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-l-freidland-realty-inc-v-modern-cabinet-corp-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack