Reza Namazi Real Estate Corp. v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reza Namazi Real Estate Corp. v. Johnson

243 A.D.2d 396, 663 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 396 (Reza Namazi Real Estate Corp. v. Johnson) 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

Reza Namazi Real Estate Corp. v. Johnson, 243 A.D.2d 396, 663 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1997, which, in an action to recover a brokerage commission, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to establish that it produced a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase the property at the terms set [397]*397forth by defendants-sellers. The correspondence between, and conduct of, the parties to the transaction clearly demonstrate that they were not in agreement as to the closing date, the clause entitling defendants to terminate the contract unconditionally, and the date when defendants would vacate the premises. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to its commission (see, Rusciano Realty Servs. v Griffler, 62 NY2d 696). Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish that defendants wrongfully or arbitrarily prevented completion of the deal (Heelan Realty & Dev. Corp. v Skyview Meadows Dev. Corp., 204 AD2d 601). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1997, which, in an action to recover a brokerage commission, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to establish that it produced a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase the property at the terms set [397]*397forth by defendants-sellers. The correspondence between, and conduct of, the parties to the transaction clearly demonstrate that they were not in agreement as to the closing date, the clause entitling defendants to terminate the contract unconditionally, and the date when defendants would vacate the premises. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to its commission (see, Rusciano Realty Servs. v Griffler, 62 NY2d 696). Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish that defendants wrongfully or arbitrarily prevented completion of the deal (Heelan Realty & Dev. Corp. v Skyview Meadows Dev. Corp., 204 AD2d 601). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 396, 663 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reza-namazi-real-estate-corp-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack