From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanton v. Power

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 1998
254 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 20, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.).


Since, under the parties' agreement, defendants' duty to pay plaintiff was expressly conditioned upon plaintiff's written presentation of potential merger candidates, and plaintiff failed, in responding to defendants' summary judgment motion, to adduce any evidence that that condition had been satisfied, the motion court properly found plaintiff's recovery of a finder's fee pursuant to the agreement precluded as a matter of law ( see, Oppenheimer Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon Co., 86 N.Y.2d 685). Since this case involves an express condition precedent to defendants' payment obligation, we perceive no basis upon which the doctrine of substantial performance might be invoked ( see, supra, at 692).

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Stanton v. Power

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 1998
254 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Stanton v. Power

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT N. STANTON, Appellant, v. PATRICK J. POWER et al., Individually and…

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

Date published: Oct 20, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 293

Citing Cases

Women's Interart Ctr., Inc. v. N.Y.C. Econ. Dev. Corp.

* * * Express conditions must be literally performed; substantial performance will not suffice." MHR Capital…

Preferred Mtg. Brokers, Inc. v. Byfield

We agree. A condition precedent is "an act or event * * * which, unless the condition is excused, must occur…