From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray Adler Realty Co., Inc. v. Benerofe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 1973
42 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Opinion

July 2, 1973


In an action to recover a brokerage commission, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 22, 1972, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. In our view, no genuine triable issues of fact exist which preclude the granting of defendant's cross motion (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]). No meeting of the minds of the parties with respect to all the essential contract terms was ever reached and hence plaintiff is not entitled to a brokerage commission ( Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N.Y. 378, 382; Kaelin v. Warner, 27 N.Y.2d 352; Matter of Altz, 274 App. Div. 894, affd. 300 N.Y. 607). Hopkins, Acting P.J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Murray Adler Realty Co., Inc. v. Benerofe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 1973
42 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)
Case details for

Murray Adler Realty Co., Inc. v. Benerofe

Case Details

Full title:MURRAY ADLER REALTY CO., INC., Respondent, v. ALVIN BENEROFE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 2, 1973

Citations

42 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Citing Cases

Donald Zucker Company v. Prime Properties, Inc.

(Plaintiff's Rule 9(g) statement ¶ e). While we may sympathize with plaintiff, it is axiomatic that a broker…

Nuvest, S. A. v. Gulf Western Industries

According to G W, these statements mean that a seller can stick to his original terms without thereby…