Rosenthal v. Atlas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenthal v. Atlas

272 A.D.2d 1022

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1022 (Rosenthal v. Atlas) 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

Rosenthal v. Atlas, 272 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a real estate brokerage commission, judgment of the County Court of Nassau County for plaintiff reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The findings of fact implicit in the verdict are affirmed. The broker, under the proved employment, was not entitled to brokerage commission until there was a meeting of the minds of the buyer and [1023]*1023seller upon all the essential terms of a contract of sale. {Arnold v. Schmeidler, 144 App. Div. 420; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Company, 83 N. Y. 378, 382; Gallagher v. Bullea, 199 App. Div. 119; Bouse v. Bornburg, 267 App. Div. 557, affd. 294 N..Y. 750.) The instrument signed by the broker’s agent agreeing that the commission should not be deemed due, earned, or payable unless title actually passed was valid and binding on the broker. (Personal Property Law, § 33, subd. 2; Real Property Law, § 279, subd. 1; Kane Realty Co., Inc., V. National Children’s Stores, Inc., 169 Mise. 699.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Cars-well, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a real estate brokerage commission, judgment of the County Court of Nassau County for plaintiff reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The findings of fact implicit in the verdict are affirmed. The broker, under the proved employment, was not entitled to brokerage commission until there was a meeting of the minds of the buyer and [1023]*1023seller upon all the essential terms of a contract of sale. {Arnold v. Schmeidler, 144 App. Div. 420; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Company, 83 N. Y. 378, 382; Gallagher v. Bullea, 199 App. Div. 119; Bouse v. Bornburg, 267 App. Div. 557, affd. 294 N..Y. 750.) The instrument signed by the broker’s agent agreeing that the commission should not be deemed due, earned, or payable unless title actually passed was valid and binding on the broker. (Personal Property Law, § 33, subd. 2; Real Property Law, § 279, subd. 1; Kane Realty Co., Inc., V. National Children’s Stores, Inc., 169 Mise. 699.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Cars-well, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-atlas-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack