From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WOLF v. WOHL

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 19, 1980
103 Misc. 2d 1044 (N.Y. App. Term 1980)

Opinion

June 19, 1980

Appeal from the District Court of Nassau County, First District, RICHARD E. EDSTROM, J.

Ferzinger Wohl Finkelstein Rothman (Ronald G. Wohl of counsel), for appellant.

George Fidel and Leslie W. Rubin for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

Order is unanimously reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed.

A lease is both a contract and a conveyance of an estate or interest in land (1 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant [2d ed], §§ 2, 3). Since the lease and occupancy of the apartment are inextricably related to the sale of shares in the co-operative corporation (see Matter of State Tax Comm. v Shor, 43 N.Y.2d 151, 157; Frank v Rubin, 59 Misc.2d 796), a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating the sale of such shares comes within the purview of section 5-701 Gen. Oblig. of the General Obligations Law and section 442-d Real Prop. of the Real Property Law (see Frank v Rubin, supra; Sebel v Williams, 88 Misc.2d 411). The plaintiff herein was not a licensed real estate broker or a salesperson and the agreement to pay commission was not in writing. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover commissions.

Concur: PITTONI, P.J., SLIFKIN and O'GORMAN, JJ.


Summaries of

WOLF v. WOHL

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 19, 1980
103 Misc. 2d 1044 (N.Y. App. Term 1980)
Case details for

WOLF v. WOHL

Case Details

Full title:LEE WOLF, Respondent, v. BERNICE WOHL, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jun 19, 1980

Citations

103 Misc. 2d 1044 (N.Y. App. Term 1980)
431 N.Y.S.2d 743

Citing Cases

Severin v. Rouse

The court in determining the amount of overcharges for which petitioner is liable to the respondents will…

Lazar v. Roberts

The defendants' second contention is that the plaintiff's action for commissions is barred by the Statute of…