R.B. Schlesinger & Co. v. Delson & Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R.B. Schlesinger & Co. v. Delson & Gordon

184 A.D.2d 393, 585 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8506

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

DecidedJune 23, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 393 (R.B. Schlesinger & Co. v. Delson & Gordon) 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.B. Schlesinger & Co. v. Delson & Gordon, 184 A.D.2d 393, 585 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.), entered August 16, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a broker is entitled to a commission when it produces a party ready, [394]*394willing and able to accept the terms offered by the principal (Lane — Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 42; Williamson, Picket, Gross v Hirschfeld, 92 AD2d 289). Here, defendant gave an exclusive brokerage to Huberth & Peters, Inc., which because it conditioned any commissions on a completed transaction, permitted defendant to consider competing offers (White & Sons v La Touraine — Bickford’s Foods, 50 AD2d 547, affd 40 NY2d 1039). Plaintiff was aware of this exclusive brokerage agreement and its terms when it tendered to defendant its principal’s offer to sublease the premises, and thus is bound by its terms. Since the offer of sublease tendered by plaintiff was never executed or accepted by defendant, and since the agreement between defendant and its broker conditioned commissions upon a completed transaction, plaintiff has no right to a commission based upon such offer (see, Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.), entered August 16, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a broker is entitled to a commission when it produces a party ready, [394]*394willing and able to accept the terms offered by the principal (Lane — Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 42; Williamson, Picket, Gross v Hirschfeld, 92 AD2d 289). Here, defendant gave an exclusive brokerage to Huberth & Peters, Inc., which because it conditioned any commissions on a completed transaction, permitted defendant to consider competing offers (White & Sons v La Touraine — Bickford’s Foods, 50 AD2d 547, affd 40 NY2d 1039). Plaintiff was aware of this exclusive brokerage agreement and its terms when it tendered to defendant its principal’s offer to sublease the premises, and thus is bound by its terms. Since the offer of sublease tendered by plaintiff was never executed or accepted by defendant, and since the agreement between defendant and its broker conditioned commissions upon a completed transaction, plaintiff has no right to a commission based upon such offer (see, Graff v Billet, 64 NY2d 899). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 393, 585 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rb-schlesinger-co-v-delson-gordon-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack