You are here: / / In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled...
,

In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, in another case arising from the “toxic debts” crisis, determined that the plaintiff was an exclusive agent for the sale of assets, and was not granted an exclusive right to sell the assets. If plaintiff had been granted an exclusive right to sell, it may have been entitled to a commission when the assets were sold by the principal.  But, since the contract was silent about the plaintiff's right to a commission when the principal sells the assets, plaintiff was granted only an exclusive agency for the sale of the assets and the principal could sell the assets without any obligation to pay a commission to the plaintiff.  The exclusive agency agreement only precluded the principal from hiring another agent:

The distinction between an exclusive agency and an exclusive right to sell is well established in a body of Appellate Division case law … . As stated nearly a century ago, “The general rule is that where an exclusive right of sale is given a broker, the principal cannot make a sale [herself] without becoming liable for the commissions. But where the contract is merely to make the broker the sole agent, the principal may make a sale [herself] without the broker's aid, if such sale is made in good faith and to some purchaser not procured by the broker”… .

Put differently, “[a] broker is entitled to a commission upon the sale of the property by the owner only where the broker has been given the exclusive right to sell; an exclusive agency merely precludes the owner from retaining another broker in the making of the sale” … . We have endorsed this dichotomy implicitly in the past …, and now do so explicitly.

Furthermore, we agree with the case law of the lower courts holding that a contract giving rise to an exclusive right of sale must “clearly and expressly provide[] that a commission is due upon sale by the owner or exclude[] the owner from independently negotiating a sale” … . Requiring an affirmative and unequivocal statement to establish a broker's exclusive right to sell is consistent with the general principle that an owner's freedom to dispose of her own property should not be infringed upon by mere implication. Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v UBS AG, 2014 NY Slip Op 04112, CtApp 6-10-14

 

You might also like
CONTEMPT ORDER IN A CIVIL MATTER INVOLVING THE SAME FUNDS DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF STEALING IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER IS NOT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT OUTWEIGHED ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.
Rule Allowing Testing of Horses for Speed-Enhancing Drugs at Times Other than Just Before a Race Is a Valid Exercise of Racing & Wagering Board’s Authority
A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH REGISTERS TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CONSENTS TO THE SERVICE OF PROCESS IN NEW YORK BUT DOES NOT CONSENT TO THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF NEW YORK (CT APP). ​
City Had Not Impliedly Dedicated Certain Parcels of Land as Public Parklands—Therefore the Parcels, Which Had Been Used as Public Parks, Were Not Protected by the Public Trust Doctrine and Could Be Sold by the City Without the Approval of the State Legislature
THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​
APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP).
No Prosecutorial Misconduct Where Prosecutors Told the Grand Jury that the Witness Defendant Asked the Grand Jury to Call Would Not Provide Relevant Evidence/Prosecutor’s Role in Grand Jury Explained in Some Detail
THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN PROVIDING DISCOVERY; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS INVALID AND DID NOT STOP THE SPEEDY-TRIAL CLOCK (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A SORA Assessment in a Child Pornography Case Can Take Into Account Whether... Judge’s Speaking to a Juror During Deliberations, With Defense Counsel’s...