From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schwartz v. Felton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1988
138 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 14, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Velsor in his memorandum decision in the Supreme Court, Nassau County.

We note our agreement with Supreme Court's finding that the plaintiff and Sutton Towne Suburban, Inc. (hereinafter Suburban) are precluded under the terms of the brokerage commission agreement from recovering any commission for the execution of a lease on the premises in question. We perceive no reason, however, why that finding should bar the plaintiff's and Suburban's recovery of commissions on the sale of the subject premises. All parties to the action concede that the plaintiff's efforts to procure a buyer for the premises led to the ultimate sale thereof, and, therefore, Suburban, as his employer, was entitled to a brokerage commission in which the plaintiff was entitled to share. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schwartz v. Felton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1988
138 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Schwartz v. Felton

Case Details

Full title:JERRY M. SCHWARTZ, Respondent-Appellant, v. MURRAY B. FELTON et al., as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 14, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)