Blake-Veeder Realty, Inc. v. Crayford

Decision Date25 April 1985
Docket NumberBLAKE-VEEDER
Citation110 A.D.2d 1007,488 N.Y.S.2d 295
PartiesREALTY, INC., et al., Respondents, v. Michael CRAYFORD et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

La Pann, Reardon, Fitzgerald & Firth, Glens Falls (Jennifer A. Jensen, Glens Falls, of counsel), for appellants, et al., defendant.

Gibbons & Burke, Scotia (Kenneth T. Gibbons, Scotia, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MAIN, J.P., and WEISS, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.

HARVEY, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 15, 1984 in Schenectady County, which denied a motion by defendants Michael Crayford and Charles Ashline for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs, two real estate brokers which had entered into a fee-sharing agreement, commenced this action in April 1982. Defendants are a real estate development corporation and two of its officers who own all of its stock. In the first cause of action, plaintiff Blake-Veeder Realty, Inc. (hereinafter Blake-Veeder) seeks a broker's fee from the corporate defendant only for a real estate sale made on the basis of a written listing agreement. In the second cause of action, both plaintiffs seek a commission allegedly earned pursuant to the terms of an oral agreement for the sale of defendant corporation's equity in a real estate development. Plaintiffs assert in their complaint that defendants Michael Crayford and Charles Ashline, in their individual capacities, agreed to pay the commission on a sale which was brought about by plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendants Crayford and Ashline moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them on the ground that the earned commission was only a corporate debt. They contended that they were acting as corporate officers and not as individuals when they negotiated with plaintiffs. The motion was denied and this appeal ensued.

In denying the individual defendants' motion, Special Term determined that an affidavit submitted by plaintiffs raised a question of fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. We agree. The affidavit summarizes oral statements made by the individual defendants which could be construed as personal promises to pay the commission. This affidavit not only raises the factual issue as to whether there was an oral agreement, but also two other important issues. One issue is whether the promises were to guarantee payment of a liability of the corporation....

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Good v. MacDonell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1990
    ... ... to every favorable inference that the evidence permits (Blake-Veeder Realty, Inc. v. Crayford, 110 A.D.2d 1007, 1008, 488 N.Y.S.2d ... 295) ... ...
  • Oakley v. St. Joseph's Hosp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 23 Enero 1986
    ...Home Prods. Corp. (supra). Given that plaintiff is entitled to every favorable inference on the motion (see, Blake-Veeder Realty v. Crayford, 110 A.D.2d 1007, 488 N.Y.S.2d 295), the fact remains that her allegations are conclusory in nature and without any underlying factual basis. Contrary......
  • In re Costello
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 8 Septiembre 1994
    ...exempts licensed real estate brokers from the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. See also Blake-Veeder Realty, Inc. v. Crayford, 110 A.D.2d 1007, 488 N.Y.S.2d 295 (3rd Dept.1985); Fidelity Business Brokers, Inc. v. Gamaldi, 190 A.D.2d 709, 593 N.Y.S.2d 315 (2nd Dept.1993). Assuming, arg......
  • Martin v. Briggs
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Octubre 1997
    ...judgment motion, evidence should be analyzed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Blake-Veeder Realty v. Crayford, 110 A.D.2d 1007, 1008, 488 N.Y.S.2d 295.) The key to summary judgment resolution is " 'issue-finding, rather than issue-determination'." (Sillman v. T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT