Douglas Holly, Inc. v. Rice

8 Citing cases

  1. BAII Banking Corp. v. UPG, Inc.

    985 F.2d 685 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 85 times
    Holding as a matter of law that reasonable grounds of insecurity did not exist under New York UCC Section 2-609

    . . .'") (citation omitted); see also Howard v. Murray, 43 N.Y.2d 417, 421, 372 N.E.2d 568, 570, 401 N.Y.S.2d 781, 783 (1977) (citing Wendt). But see Bank Brussels Lambert, S.A. v. Intermetals Corp., 779 F. Supp. 741, 747 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Douglas Holly, Inc. v. Rice, 161 A.D.2d 560, 561, 555 N.Y.S.2d 138, 139 (2d Dep't), leave to appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 709, 563 N.E.2d 284, 561 N.Y.S.2d 913 (1990). We conclude that BAII's claim is without merit.

  2. Douglas Holly, Inc. v. Rice

    76 N.Y.2d 709 (N.Y. 1990)

    Decided October 11, 1990 Appeal from (2d Dept: 161 A.D.2d 560) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED

  3. Atlantic Hudson Realty, Inc. v. Rhodes

    297 A.D.2d 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

    The plaintiff Brian G. Nelson was entitled to his commission since there was no admissible proof adduced at the trial to support the defendant's bare assertion that Nelson shared his commission with the buyers of the defendant's house. In any event, the defendant failed to show that he suffered any damages (see Douglas Holly, Inc. v. Rice, 161 A.D.2d 560). The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

  4. Reiser Inc. v. Roberts Real Estate

    292 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 22 times

    Accepting these allegations, as we must, in the light most favorable to plaintiff (see, Foresite Props. v. Halsdorf, 172 A.D.2d 929, 930), we nevertheless find that they are insufficient to create a material issue of fact precluding summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant breached its fiduciary duty. "In New York, it is well settled that a real estate broker is a fiduciary with a duty of loyalty and an obligation to act in the best interests of the principal * * *" (Dubbs v. Stribling Assocs., 96 N.Y.2d 337, 340 [citations omitted]; see, Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate v. Berner, 202 A.D.2d 949, 951; Douglas Holly Inc. v. Rice, 161 A.D.2d 560, 561, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 709). This duty, however, is not unlimited (see, Sonnenschein v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons Ives, 96 N.Y.2d 369, 375-376 [holding that a broker had no duty to refrain from showing other properties to a purchaser who is in the process of negotiating to purchase the principal's property]; Yellot v. Poritzky, 170 A.D.2d 676, 677 [no duty to disclose to principal the broker's purchase of a parcel contiguous to the parcel broker purchased from principal]). Indeed, in our view, the duty is not so broad as to render a broker responsible for protecting its principal's interests with respect to a property that has not been listed with that broker.

  5. Coldwell Banker Residential Real v. Berner

    202 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 13 times

    Furthermore, Raghavan was not required to be present throughout the negotiations nor was his presence required when the final agreement was made (see, Greene v. Hellman, supra; Brown, Harris, Stevens v. Rosenberg, supra; Gabrielli v. Cornazzani, 135 A.D.2d 340, 342). Defendants' last contention is that plaintiffs forfeited all rights to commissions by violating their fiduciary obligations to defendants. "It is clear that a broker, as agent for an owner, owes a duty of good faith and loyalty to his principal" (Douglas Holly, Inc. v. Rice, 161 A.D.2d 560, 561, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 709; see, Matter of Goldstein v. Department of State, Div. of Licensing Servs., 144 A.D.2d 463; Matter of Grant Realty v Cuomo, 58 A.D.2d 251). An agent breaches this affirmative duty by acting for a party whose interests are adverse to those of the principal (see, Matter of Goldstein v. Department of State, Div. of Licensing Servs., supra, at 464) or by failing to disclose information obtained during the period of engagement which affects the transaction in which the agent is engaged, so that the principal may take steps to protect his or her interests (see, Klein v. Twentieth Century-Fox Intl. Corp., 201 Misc. 132, affd 279 App. Div. 989). Although Raghavan failed to disclose to Berner the drive-up window problem and the fact that he had initiated lease discussions between Citibank and the owners of the Somerstown Shopping Center, the record shows that Berner acquired knowledge of both through his direct negotiations with Citibank and, as already noted, ultimat

  6. Saunders Ventures, Inc. v. Morrow

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 31447 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

    Contrary to B&H's contention, the evidence does not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff breached its fiduciary duty. Moreover, even if B&H breached its duty, it will nevertheless be entitled to a commission if the Trust, as seller, was not prejudiced by the conflict (see Douglas Holly, Inc. v Rice, 161 AD2d 560 [2d Dept 1990]).

  7. Rallis v. Brannigan

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 30164 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, Defendant is unable to establish any damages resulting from Mrs. Rallis's alleged breach of duty and thereby cannot avoid her contractual obligations. Douglas Holly, Inc. v. Rice, 161 AD 2d 560 (2d Dep't 1990), app. den. 76 NY2d 138 (1990).

  8. Central City Brokerage Corp. v. Elayachar

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 30323 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

    A real estate broker is a fiduciary with a duty of loyalty and an obligation to act in the best interests of the principal. Douglas Holly, Inc. v Rice, 161 AD2d 560 (2d Dept 1990), lv to appeal denied 76 NY2d 709 (1990). Here, Central City demanded a commission from APHI after the closing date passed, and was rebuffed.