Salahuddin v. Benjamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salahuddin v. Benjamin

42 A.D.2d 522, 344 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810

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

DecidedJune 7, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 522 (Salahuddin v. Benjamin) 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

Salahuddin v. Benjamin, 42 A.D.2d 522, 344 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 8, 1972, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the complaint, and otherwise -affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff sues for a commission allegedly earned by obtaining a purchaser for certain real property. The complaint' was dismissed on the ground that the agreement for brokerage commissions was not in writing. As the complaint alleges that plaintiff was a licensed real estate broker, no written agreement is required (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 10; Lane-Real Estate v. Lawlet Corp., 28 N Y 2d 36). The vacating of the lis pendens was proper (CPLR 6501; Kauffman v. Simis, 156 App. Div. 208). It appears that the amount in controversy is within the statutory jurisdiction of the Civil Court and, absent any jurisdictional bar, the case might well be remanded to that court for disposition. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Murphy, Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 8, 1972, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the complaint, and otherwise -affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff sues for a commission allegedly earned by obtaining a purchaser for certain real property. The complaint' was dismissed on the ground that the agreement for brokerage commissions was not in writing. As the complaint alleges that plaintiff was a licensed real estate broker, no written agreement is required (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 10; Lane-Real Estate v. Lawlet Corp., 28 N Y 2d 36). The vacating of the lis pendens was proper (CPLR 6501; Kauffman v. Simis, 156 App. Div. 208). It appears that the amount in controversy is within the statutory jurisdiction of the Civil Court and, absent any jurisdictional bar, the case might well be remanded to that court for disposition. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Murphy, Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 522, 344 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salahuddin-v-benjamin-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack