Rakofsky Associates, Inc. v. Brokers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rakofsky Associates, Inc. v. Brokers

88 A.D.2d 862, 452 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17179

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

DecidedJune 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 862 (Rakofsky Associates, Inc. v. Brokers) 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

Rakofsky Associates, Inc. v. Brokers, 88 A.D.2d 862, 452 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherman, J.), entered June 24,1981, to the extent appealed from, which, inter alia, directed defendant-appellant to pay Rakofsky Associates, Inc., $24,852.90 in commissions based on an agreement between the parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements. We construe the intention of the judgment appealed from to be that the defendant-appellant’s obligation pay commissions shall continue until it turns over the plaintiff’s files and executes letters of authorization for the transfer of the named broker of record on each of the accounts. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Silverman, Bloom and Lynch, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherman, J.), entered June 24,1981, to the extent appealed from, which, inter alia, directed defendant-appellant to pay Rakofsky Associates, Inc., $24,852.90 in commissions based on an agreement between the parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements. We construe the intention of the judgment appealed from to be that the defendant-appellant’s obligation pay commissions shall continue until it turns over the plaintiff’s files and executes letters of authorization for the transfer of the named broker of record on each of the accounts. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Silverman, Bloom and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 862, 452 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rakofsky-associates-inc-v-brokers-nyappdiv-1982.