From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Midland Mortgagee Corp. v. 220 Highland Boulevard Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1989
156 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 4, 1989

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


Ordered that the order and judgment and the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The defendants sought the services of the plaintiff, a mortgage broker, in order to procure a mortgage. The broker's commission was to be earned upon the making of a commitment by the lender, payable at the closing. The plaintiff procured a commitment which, in its terms, varied substantially from the terms sought by defendants. Although the evidence indicated that the defendants may have considered accepting the commitment offered, they in fact decided otherwise. There having been no acceptance of the commitment, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover a commission (see, Gilder v Davis, 137 N.Y. 504; cf., Midland Mortgagee Corp. v Kazarnovsky, 128 A.D.2d 595). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Midland Mortgagee Corp. v. 220 Highland Boulevard Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1989
156 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Midland Mortgagee Corp. v. 220 Highland Boulevard Realty Co.

Case Details

Full title:MIDLAND MORTGAGEE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. 220 HIGHLAND BLVD. REALTY CO…

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

Date published: Dec 4, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
548 N.Y.S.2d 304

Citing Cases

Multiloan Mortgage Co. v. Asian Gardens Ltd.

Further, there are issues of fact as to whether Multiloan was the procuring cause of the loan obtained by…