Rocco v. Sortino

105 A.D.2d 1063, 482 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21138
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 7, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1063 (Rocco v. Sortino) 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
Rocco v. Sortino, 105 A.D.2d 1063, 482 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff, a licensed real estate salesperson, as assignee of a licensed real estate broker, commenced this action against defendant, former owner of Brook-dale Golf Club, Inc., seeking to recover commissions for procuring a buyer for the property. Special Term granted defendant’s summary judgment motion and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. The court found that the assignment of rights to commissions by a real estate broker to a real estate salesperson violated section 442-a of the Real Property Law. We disagree. Section 442-a of the Real Property Law prohibits a real estate salesperson from recovering compensation from anyone other than a licensed real estate broker with whom he is associated. Thus, it would prohibit the plaintiff here from commencing an action against defendant for a commission in his own right (Weintraub v Welch, 77 AD2d 792). The statute, however, does not preclude an assignment of rights by a real estate broker to a real estate salesperson. We can discern no public policy which would be violated by such an assignment (see General Obligations Law, § 13-101, subd 3). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, John J. Conway, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Related

Boxhoorn v. C.P. Realty Associates
145 Misc. 2d 64 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1989)
Myles v. Litas Investing Co.
152 A.D.2d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.2d 1063, 482 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rocco-v-sortino-nyappdiv-1984.