From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc. v. Cheng

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1999
258 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 22, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).


Ordered that the judgment as amended is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to-the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of damages only.

The appellants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff which provided that the plaintiff had the "sole and exclusive" right to represent the appellants concerning the purchase of the subject premises. The Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellants breached this agreement when they enlisted the services of another broker, Golden Choice Realty, to purchase the subject premises before the term of the agreement with the plaintiff had expired. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the commission it would have received had the appellants not breached the agreement ( see, Columbia Asset Mgt. Corp. v. Emerson Equities, 75 N.Y.2d 759; Douglas Real Estate Mgt. Corp. v. Montgomery Ward Co., 4 N.Y.2d 33; cf., Interactive Props. v. Doyle Dane Bernbach, 125 A.D.2d 265).

Since the parties' agreement was silent as to the specific amount of the commission, the plaintiff is entitled to a commission that is fair and reasonable ( see, Hotchkiss v. Kuchler, 86 App. Div. 265; Bierman v. Barbieri, 124 Misc. 157). Usually, this is the customary rate in the community at the time when the services are rendered ( see, Ingalls v. Streeter, 67 N.Y.S.2d 351).

The Supreme Court also properly found that the sale of the subject premises was not co-brokered by the plaintiff and the Golden Choice Realty. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 100% of the customary commission received at the time of the sale. However, at the trial, the parties failed to establish by competent evidence the customary rate in the community at the time when the property was sold to the appellants. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial to determine the customary rate of commission.

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc. v. Cheng

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1999
258 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc. v. Cheng

Case Details

Full title:KAPLON-BELO ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent, v. JEFFREY CHENG et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 768

Citing Cases

Premium Fin. Rlty. Serv. v. 233 Broadway Owners, LLC

In any event, even assuming that the amount of plaintiff's brokerage commission was not agreed upon, a…

PJD Corp. Realty v. Henry George Sch. of Soc. Sci.

although it did not contain material terms including manner in which broker's fee was to be computed)-,…