From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutton v. Transcontinental Investing Corp.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Nov 29, 1961
31 Misc. 2d 832 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)

Opinion

November 29, 1961

Feldman, Kramer, Bam, Nessen Cowett ( Maurice S. Nessen of counsel), for defendants.

Clarence S. Barasch for plaintiff.


Defendants move for dismissal of the complaint, for legal insufficiency. Plaintiff, as a New York licensee, sues to recover brokerage commissions with respect to a sale of property located in the State of New Jersey. A licensed broker may sue and maintain an action upon a brokerage contract, regardless where the property is located, if he alleges he is licensed under the New York statute. That is the sole condition precedent or requirement for pleading purpose, and it is not required that he also allege other facts which render the New York State statute applicable or inapplicable to the particular stated cause. Plaintiff does not allege that he is also licensed under the New Jersey statute, and the defendants urge facts which they contend make the New Jersey statute applicable or the New York statute inapplicable, but none of these facts appear in the pleading nor is the pleading thereof by the plaintiff required. At least it is alleged that the defendant corporation is a foreign corporation authorized to do business here and the individual defendants are its officers. It is not alleged that the owner of the New Jersey property is a resident of New Jersey or that any contract mentioned in the complaint was made in New Jersey or that any negotiations were had in New Jersey. The statutes (Real Property Law, §§ 440-a, 442-d) cover brokers and services rendered in this State, regardless of the location of the property subject of the claimed brokerage ( Baird v. Hine, 253 App. Div. 65; Bitterman v. Schulman, 265 App. Div. 486; Aronson v. Carobine, 129 Misc. 800; Copellman v. Rabinowitz, 208 Misc. 274). The motion is denied.


Summaries of

Sutton v. Transcontinental Investing Corp.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Nov 29, 1961
31 Misc. 2d 832 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
Case details for

Sutton v. Transcontinental Investing Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LEON A. SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTING CORPORATION et…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Nov 29, 1961

Citations

31 Misc. 2d 832 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
222 N.Y.S.2d 778

Citing Cases

MANSHION JOHO CTR. CO. v. NOMURA SUZUKI PROP.

It prohibits the performance of the acts of an unlicensed broker in New York, but says nothing about the…

Manshion Joho Center Co. v. Manshion Joho Center, Inc.

Nor does Real Property Law § 442-d, which prohibits recovery of a real estate broker's commission by brokers…