Rexford Realty, Inc. v. Koppler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rexford Realty, Inc. v. Koppler

163 A.D.2d 894

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D.2d 894 (Rexford Realty, Inc. v. Koppler) 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

Rexford Realty, Inc. v. Koppler, 163 A.D.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unani[895]*895mously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, both parties moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion but erred in granting plaintiffs motion. Whether the May 4, 1988 listing agreement between the parties was intended to serve as a "renewal” of their prior agreement, and whether the "effective period” of 60 days under the May 4, 1988 agreement is to be accorded any significance in light of the May 23, 1988 rescission of that agreement, are questions of fact which must be resolved at trial (see, Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 293). That part of the order granting summary judgment to plaintiff must, therefore, be reversed and plaintiffs motion must be denied. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unani[895]*895mously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, both parties moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion but erred in granting plaintiffs motion. Whether the May 4, 1988 listing agreement between the parties was intended to serve as a "renewal” of their prior agreement, and whether the "effective period” of 60 days under the May 4, 1988 agreement is to be accorded any significance in light of the May 23, 1988 rescission of that agreement, are questions of fact which must be resolved at trial (see, Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 293). That part of the order granting summary judgment to plaintiff must, therefore, be reversed and plaintiffs motion must be denied. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rexford-realty-inc-v-koppler-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack