You are here: / / BROKER NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE PLAINTIFF’S...

BROKER NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict finding plaintiff was entitled to a broker’s commission for the sale of defendant’s property should have been granted. The court explained the relevant criteria:

 

To prevail on a cause of action to recover a commission, the broker must establish (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) that it had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) that it was the procuring cause of the sale … . “[T]he duty assumed by the broker is to bring the minds of the buyer and seller to an agreement for a sale, and the price and terms on which it is to be made, and until that is done his right to commissions does not accrue” … . To establish that a broker was the procuring cause of a transaction, the broker must establish that there was “a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction and the consummation” … . Where, as here, the broker is not involved in the negotiations leading up to the completion of the deal, the broker must establish that it ” created an amicable atmosphere in which negotiations proceeded or that [it] generated a chain of circumstances that proximately led to the sale'” … . * * *

Here, there was no valid line of reasoning which could have led to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale.  Douglas Elliman, LLC v Silver, 2016 NY Slip Op 00675, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

REAL ESTATE (BROKER NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION)/BROKERS, REAL ESTATE (NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION)/COMMISSIONS, REAL ESTATE (BROKER NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION)

You might also like
Property Owner Not Liable for Tracked-In Rain
THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Buyout Upon Dissolution Can Be Ordered by Judge 
AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE BEATER” WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED AS PERTINENT TO THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS IN NASSAU COUNTY BUT NEVER AMENDED ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION WHICH DESIGNATED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AS QUEENS COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FROM QUEENS TO NASSAU COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INITIAL ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT WAS TIMELY BUT DEFECTIVE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE ARGUMENT THAT NECESSARY PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN JOINED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; THE PROPER REMEDY IS TO SUMMON THE NECESSARY PARTIES, NOT DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
Murder Conviction Against the Weight of the Evidence—Strangulation Was the Result of an Attempt to Increase Sexual Pleasure—No Intent to Kill

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

FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY OF RECOVERY REQUIRED DENIAL... ACTION TO RESCIND A PURCHASE CONTRACT CONSTITUTED AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF...