Wolf v. Wohl

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. Wohl

103 Misc. 2d 1044, 431 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2249

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 19, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 Misc. 2d 1044 (Wolf v. Wohl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolf v. Wohl, 103 Misc. 2d 1044, 431 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

[1045]*1045OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order is unanimously reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed.

A lease is both a contract and a conveyance of an estate or interest in land (1 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant [2d ed], §§ 2, 3). Since the lease and occupancy of the apartment are inextricably related to the sale of shares in the co-operative corporation (see Matter of State Tax Comm. v Shor, 43 NY2d 151, 157; Frank v Rubin, 59 Misc 2d 796), a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating the sale of such shares comes within the purview of section 5-701 of the General Obligations Law and section 442-d of the Real Property Law (see Frank v Rubin, supra; Sebel v Williams, 88 Misc 2d 411). The plaintiff herein was not a licensed real estate broker or a salesperson and the agreement to pay commission was not in writing. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover commissions.

Concur: Pittoni, P. J., Slifkin and O’Gorman, JJ.

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

[1045]*1045OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order is unanimously reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed.

A lease is both a contract and a conveyance of an estate or interest in land (1 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant [2d ed], §§ 2, 3). Since the lease and occupancy of the apartment are inextricably related to the sale of shares in the co-operative corporation (see Matter of State Tax Comm. v Shor, 43 NY2d 151, 157; Frank v Rubin, 59 Misc 2d 796), a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating the sale of such shares comes within the purview of section 5-701 of the General Obligations Law and section 442-d of the Real Property Law (see Frank v Rubin, supra; Sebel v Williams, 88 Misc 2d 411). The plaintiff herein was not a licensed real estate broker or a salesperson and the agreement to pay commission was not in writing. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover commissions.

Concur: Pittoni, P. J., Slifkin and O’Gorman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 Misc. 2d 1044, 431 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-wohl-nyappterm-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack