Wilkins Agency, Inc. v. Palanzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilkins Agency, Inc. v. Palanzo

55 A.D.2d 780, 389 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15571

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 780 (Wilkins Agency, Inc. v. Palanzo) 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

Wilkins Agency, Inc. v. Palanzo, 55 A.D.2d 780, 389 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

[781]*781—Appeal from an. order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 10, 1976 in Essex County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The record contains evidence that the defendant did agree to pay the plaintiff a brokerage fee if the plaintiff produced a buyer, ready, willing and able on the seller’s terms for defendant’s real estate. The plaintiff’s affidavits and examination before trial contain evidence tending to establish that it did produce such a buyer who agreed to terms expressed orally by the defendant, but the defendant then refused to sell. The defendant submitted her examination before trial wherein she denies any completed oral offer and acceptance. Upon the present record it cannot be said that the defendant has conclusively established there was no meeting of the minds or that the plaintiff has failed to establish sufficient merit to require a trial. The denial of the motion was within the discretion of Special Term. The allegation by defendant that the Special Term improperly received an affidavit on behalf of plaintiff is without any merit. Order affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P. J., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

[781]*781—Appeal from an. order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 10, 1976 in Essex County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The record contains evidence that the defendant did agree to pay the plaintiff a brokerage fee if the plaintiff produced a buyer, ready, willing and able on the seller’s terms for defendant’s real estate. The plaintiff’s affidavits and examination before trial contain evidence tending to establish that it did produce such a buyer who agreed to terms expressed orally by the defendant, but the defendant then refused to sell. The defendant submitted her examination before trial wherein she denies any completed oral offer and acceptance. Upon the present record it cannot be said that the defendant has conclusively established there was no meeting of the minds or that the plaintiff has failed to establish sufficient merit to require a trial. The denial of the motion was within the discretion of Special Term. The allegation by defendant that the Special Term improperly received an affidavit on behalf of plaintiff is without any merit. Order affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P. J., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 780, 389 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkins-agency-inc-v-palanzo-nyappdiv-1976.