From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MILLS v. 630 PARK AVE

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 11, 1958
17 Misc. 2d 447 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

December 11, 1958

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, MARIO G. DI PIRRO, J.

Samuel Mezansky for 630 Park Associates, appellant.

Sohn Okin ( Louis Okin of counsel), for Douglas L. Elliman Co., Inc., appellant.

Howard Hilton Spellman for respondent.


It plainly appears from this record that the purchaser obtained by plaintiff repudiated her offer to buy the apartment and indeed plaintiff so testified.

The admission, made during proper cross-examination of plaintiff, as an adverse party, on a crucial issue of the case, was sufficient to nonsuit her.

Despite an agreement between a buyer and a seller upon a sale, a broker cannot recover commission where the customer procured by him "recedes from a willingness to buy". ( Wiesenberger v. Mayers, 281 App. Div. 171.)

Under the circumstances, the complaint should have been dismissed on the merits and it follows that there is no support whatever for the judgment in plaintiff's favor.

The judgment should be reversed, with $15 costs to each defendant, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Concur — HECHT, J.P., STEUER and TILZER, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

MILLS v. 630 PARK AVE

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 11, 1958
17 Misc. 2d 447 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

MILLS v. 630 PARK AVE

Case Details

Full title:GLADYS MILLS, Respondent, v. 630 PARK ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Dec 11, 1958

Citations

17 Misc. 2d 447 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
184 N.Y.S.2d 48

Citing Cases

Koron v. Myers

If the agent's employment be by special agreement, his right to compensation will be determined by the terms…