You are here: / / PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE BROKER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS ENTITLED TO A BROKERAGE...
,

PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE BROKER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS ENTITLED TO A BROKERAGE FEE; THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT EXPIRED BY ITS OWN TERMS BEFORE THE LEASE TOOK EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court after a bench trial, determined plaintiff real estate broker was not entitled to a brokerage commission:

“In order to recover a real estate brokerage commission, [a] 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 [transaction]” … . …

Although the agreement entitled the plaintiff to collect a commission “[i]f within 60 days after the expiration . . . of th[e] . . . agreement, a lease is signed or negotiations continue and ultimately lead to a signed lease of the Property to a person or entity” on a list of potential tenants to be provided by the plaintiff within 10 days of expiration of the brokerage agreement, the lease was not signed within 60 days of the expiration of the brokerage agreement, and the plaintiff did not present any evidence that it supplied a list of potential tenants to the defendant. Thus, the brokerage agreement, by its terms, expired months before the defendant entered into a binding lease … . Cpex Real Estate, LLC v Tomtro Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00999, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN.
DOG OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Corporate Officer May Be Personally Liable for Torts Committed in the Performance of Corporate Duties/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted) Explained
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO FURTHER INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT SENTENCE HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT BASED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION SHE DID NOT COMPLETE A MENTAL HEALTH COURT PROGRAM (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT).

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

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304... PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FALSE...