From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eastern Cons. Prop., Inc. v. Chemical BK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 23, 2000
269 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 23, 2000

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 11, 1998, in an action to recover a real estate broker's commission, insofar as appealed from, dismissing plaintiff's cause of action in quasi contract against defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Ian L. Blant, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Neal Schwarzfeld, for Defendants-Respondents.

TOM, J.P., RUBIN, ANDRIAS, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


Plaintiff's cause of action in quasi contract was properly dismissed on the ground that there was no relationship between respondents and the entity with which plaintiff had a brokerage agreement as might suggest that such entity turned the deal over to respondents in order to avoid paying plaintiff its commission (compare, Bradkin v. Leverton, 26 N.Y.2d 192, 197). Absent such a relationship, it is not enough that respondents may have benefitted from plaintiff's services; if such services were performed at the behest of someone other than respondents, petitioner must look to that person for recovery (see, Kagan v. K-Tel Entertainment, 172 A.D.2d 375).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Eastern Cons. Prop., Inc. v. Chemical BK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 23, 2000
269 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Eastern Cons. Prop., Inc. v. Chemical BK

Case Details

Full title:EASTERN CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEMICAL…

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

Date published: Feb 23, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 825

Citing Cases

Universal Processing LLC v. Weile Zhuang

The plaintiff must plead that it performed at the defendant's behest (see AJ Contr. Co., Inc. v Farmore…

Ginarte Gallardo Gonzalez & Winograd, LLP v. Schwitzer

Furthermore, "[i]t is not enough that the defendant received a benefit from the activities of the plaintiff"…