Vincent M. Zaloom Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Lepro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vincent M. Zaloom Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Lepro

139 A.D.2d 576, 526 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 11, 1988·Published

Opinion

— In an action to recover a brokerage commission, the defendant Biaso Lepro appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated April 15, 1987, as denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

At the core of this dispute is a so-called "binder” allegedly signed May 6, 1986, by the appellant as seller and Mr. Maillius as the buyer of a described parcel of realty. This binder provides that the appellant will pay 5% commission to the plaintiff under certain conditions. The record raises questions of fact as to whether or not this binder contains all of the elements of the actual agreement of the parties. Those issues can only be resolved at a trial (see, Donner v Septimus, 122 AD2d 104). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover a brokerage commission, the defendant Biaso Lepro appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated April 15, 1987, as denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

At the core of this dispute is a so-called "binder” allegedly signed May 6, 1986, by the appellant as seller and Mr. Maillius as the buyer of a described parcel of realty. This binder provides that the appellant will pay 5% commission to the plaintiff under certain conditions. The record raises questions of fact as to whether or not this binder contains all of the elements of the actual agreement of the parties. Those issues can only be resolved at a trial (see, Donner v Septimus, 122 AD2d 104). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Vincent M. Zaloom Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Lepro, 139 A.D.2d 576, 526 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

139 A.D.2d 576 (Vincent M. Zaloom Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Lepro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related