HAMPTON COUNTRY REAL ESTATE, INC. v. Rizzo
| Decision Date | 12 May 2003 |
| Parties | HAMPTON COUNTRY REAL ESTATE, INC., Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>JOSEPH RIZZO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
To recover a commission, a real estate broker must establish, inter alia, that it procured a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy the subject property on the terms set by the seller (see Hausman Realty Co. v Klaver, 262 AD2d 613, 614 [1999]; cf. Sopher v Martin, 243 AD2d 459, 461 [1997]; Salazar, Inc. v Levy, 237 AD2d 583 [1997]). The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds between the defendant and the prospective purchaser procured by the plaintiff with respect to all of the essential terms of the sale (see Hausman Realty Co. v Klaver, supra; Salazar, Inc. v Levy, supra; 2001 Real Estate Space Catalyst v DiBenedetto, 207 AD2d 442 [1994]; Gabrielli v Fabian, 167 AD2d 684, 685 [1990]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaplon Belo Associates, Inc. v. D'Angelo
...874 N.Y.S.2d 391; see Kaelin v. Warner, 27 N.Y.2d 352, 355, 318 N.Y.S.2d 294, 267 N.E.2d 86; Hampton Country Real Estate v. Rizzo, 305 A.D.2d 458, 759 N.Y.S.2d 334). "[I]t [is] settled that 'mere agreement as to price on a proposed sale of real property does not constitute a meeting of the ......
- Grey v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
- Geoffrey S. Matherson & Associates, Ltd. v. Siegler