Rennert-Diana & Co. v. Costarino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rennert-Diana & Co. v. Costarino

128 A.D.2d 691, 513 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44377

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 691 (Rennert-Diana & Co. v. Costarino) 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

Rennert-Diana & Co. v. Costarino, 128 A.D.2d 691, 513 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission pursuant to an exclusive agency agreement, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated July 8, 1985, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal amount of $91,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

After reviewing the evidence presented at the trial, we find that Trial Term correctly determined that the defendants were individually liable for the plaintiff’s commission under the exclusive agency agreement. In this regard, it is well settled that an agent for an undisclosed or unidentified principal is individually liable on a contract between the agent and a third party (see, McClure v Central Trust Co., 165 NY 108, 128; Tarolli Lbr. Co. v Andreassi, 59 AD2d 1011, 1012).

Further, an addendum to the exclusive agency agreement provided that the plaintiff would not be entitled to a commission if the defendants sold the property to certain named companies, on condition that such a sale was consummated within a "period of sixty (60) days from the commencement of the exclusive Real Estate Agency Agreement (3/1/83-4/30/-83)”. The defendants contend that the court incorrectly interpreted the term "consummated”. We disagree. In the context of the case at bar, a sale may be deemed "consummated” when the real estate contract is signed (see, White & Sons v La Touraine-Bickford’s Foods, 50 AD2d 547, 548, affd 40 NY2d 1039). The court correctly found that the sale by the defendants to the third party was "consummated” when the contract was signed on June 7, 1983, a period of 37 days following the expiration of the 60-day period, and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to its commission. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission pursuant to an exclusive agency agreement, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated July 8, 1985, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal amount of $91,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

After reviewing the evidence presented at the trial, we find that Trial Term correctly determined that the defendants were individually liable for the plaintiff’s commission under the exclusive agency agreement. In this regard, it is well settled that an agent for an undisclosed or unidentified principal is individually liable on a contract between the agent and a third party (see, McClure v Central Trust Co., 165 NY 108, 128; Tarolli Lbr. Co. v Andreassi, 59 AD2d 1011, 1012).

Further, an addendum to the exclusive agency agreement provided that the plaintiff would not be entitled to a commission if the defendants sold the property to certain named companies, on condition that such a sale was consummated within a "period of sixty (60) days from the commencement of the exclusive Real Estate Agency Agreement (3/1/83-4/30/-83)”. The defendants contend that the court incorrectly interpreted the term "consummated”. We disagree. In the context of the case at bar, a sale may be deemed "consummated” when the real estate contract is signed (see, White & Sons v La Touraine-Bickford’s Foods, 50 AD2d 547, 548, affd 40 NY2d 1039). The court correctly found that the sale by the defendants to the third party was "consummated” when the contract was signed on June 7, 1983, a period of 37 days following the expiration of the 60-day period, and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to its commission. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 691, 513 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rennert-diana-co-v-costarino-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack