From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rocco v. Sortino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 7, 1984
105 A.D.2d 1063 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

November 7, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, John J. Conway, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Denman, Green, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff, a licensed real estate salesperson, as assignee of a licensed real estate broker, commenced this action against defendant, former owner of Brookdale Golf Club, Inc., seeking to recover commissions for procuring a buyer for the property. Special Term granted defendant's summary judgment motion and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. The court found that the assignment of rights to commissions by a real estate broker to a real estate salesperson violated section 442-a Real Prop. of the Real Property Law. We disagree. Section 442-a Real Prop. of the Real Property Law prohibits a real estate salesperson from recovering compensation from anyone other than a licensed real estate broker with whom he is associated. Thus, it would prohibit the plaintiff here from commencing an action against defendant for a commission in his own right ( Weintraub v Welch, 77 A.D.2d 792). The statute, however, does not preclude an assignment of rights by a real estate broker to a real estate salesperson. We can discern no public policy which would be violated by such an assignment (see General Obligations Law, § 13-101, subd 3).


Summaries of

Rocco v. Sortino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 7, 1984
105 A.D.2d 1063 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Rocco v. Sortino

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK A. ROCCO, JR., Appellant, v. CONCETTA SORTINO, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 7, 1984

Citations

105 A.D.2d 1063 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Saran v. Shanghai Chengtou (USA), LLC

"Defendant is [therefore] incorrect [] in objecting to the assignment of the broker's claim against defendant…

Myles v. Litas Investing Co., Inc.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, he cannot avoid the proscription of Real Property Law § 442-a by…