Renaud & Tremblay Realty v. Kornicki

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Renaud & Tremblay Realty v. Kornicki

633 A.2d 271, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 236, 1993 WL 489672

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

DocketNo. 93-35-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 633 A.2d 271 (Renaud & Tremblay Realty v. Kornicki) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Renaud & Tremblay Realty v. Kornicki, 633 A.2d 271, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 236, 1993 WL 489672 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before this court on November 1, 1993 pursuant to an order requiring both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.

The defendant appeals from the granting of the plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff was entitled to its commission because it produced a prospective purchaser who was ready, willing, and able to purchase at the price and terms of the seller. See Rustigian v. Celona, 478 A.2d 187, 190 (R.I.1984). We do not find merit in defendant’s arguments to the contrary. Therefore, we find that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Palmisciano v. Burrillville Racing Association, 603 A.2d 317, 320 (R.I.1992) and Super.R.Civ.P. 56. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda that the parties submitted, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown.

The defendant’s appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

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

ORDER

This matter came before this court on November 1, 1993 pursuant to an order requiring both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.

The defendant appeals from the granting of the plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff was entitled to its commission because it produced a prospective purchaser who was ready, willing, and able to purchase at the price and terms of the seller. See Rustigian v. Celona, 478 A.2d 187, 190 (R.I.1984). We do not find merit in defendant’s arguments to the contrary. Therefore, we find that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Palmisciano v. Burrillville Racing Association, 603 A.2d 317, 320 (R.I.1992) and Super.R.Civ.P. 56. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda that the parties submitted, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown.

The defendant’s appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 A.2d 271, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 236, 1993 WL 489672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renaud-tremblay-realty-v-kornicki-ri-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack