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

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

DecidedApril 11, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 576 (Vincent M. Zaloom Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Lepro) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 576, 526 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-m-zaloom-realty-associates-ltd-v-lepro-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack