Rich Town Realty, Inc. v. Kim's International, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rich Town Realty, Inc. v. Kim's International, Inc.

91 A.D.3d 563, 936 N.Y.2d 889

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 563 (Rich Town Realty, Inc. v. Kim's International, Inc.) 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

Rich Town Realty, Inc. v. Kim's International, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 563, 936 N.Y.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the default. In order to succeed on its motion, defendant was required pursuant to either CPLR 317 or CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to establish a meritorious defense. Defendant failed to do so because the original commission agreement stated that its terms could not be changed orally. Evidence of any alleged oral modification to decrease the broker’s commission from $500,000 to $250,000 is barred by the explicit terms of the commission agreement (see General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]; Rose v Spa Realty Assoc., 42 NY2d 338 [1977]; Ralco, Inc. v Citibank, N.A., 32 AD3d 301 [2006]). Indeed, when the parties first agreed to modify the terms of payment of the broker’s commission, they executed a writing in compliance with the original commission agreement. Thus, contrary to defendant’s contention, the subsequent agreement affects the original agreement only as to how the broker’s commission would be paid. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the default. In order to succeed on its motion, defendant was required pursuant to either CPLR 317 or CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to establish a meritorious defense. Defendant failed to do so because the original commission agreement stated that its terms could not be changed orally. Evidence of any alleged oral modification to decrease the broker’s commission from $500,000 to $250,000 is barred by the explicit terms of the commission agreement (see General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]; Rose v Spa Realty Assoc., 42 NY2d 338 [1977]; Ralco, Inc. v Citibank, N.A., 32 AD3d 301 [2006]). Indeed, when the parties first agreed to modify the terms of payment of the broker’s commission, they executed a writing in compliance with the original commission agreement. Thus, contrary to defendant’s contention, the subsequent agreement affects the original agreement only as to how the broker’s commission would be paid. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 563, 936 N.Y.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-town-realty-inc-v-kims-international-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack