A.J. Clarke Real Estate Corp. v. Meyers

• Decision Date: 07 March 2006
• Docket Number: 8000.
• Citation: A.J. Clarke Real Estate Corp. v. Meyers, 27 A.D.3d 230, 810 N.Y.S.2d 186, 2006 NY Slip Op 1541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
• Parties: A.J. CLARKE REAL ESTATE CORP., Respondent, v. MILTON MEYERS et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

27 A.D.3d 230

810 N.Y.S.2d 186

2006 NY Slip Op 01541

A.J. CLARKE REAL ESTATE CORP., Respondent, v. MILTON MEYERS et al., Appellants.

8000.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

March 7, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered January 22, 2004, summarily awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $29,600, after defendants' cross motion for summary judgment was denied, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The oral agreement between the parties allegedly contained terms providing that "if" there were a "sale," a broker's commission would be earned. To the extent defendant sellers argue that this agreement required an actual sale to take place before a commission would be earned, such language is nonetheless consistent with the general principle that a broker's commission is deemed earned when, as here, a ready, willing and able buyer is produced who assents to the sellers' terms of sale (see Norma Reynolds Realty v Wilczewski, 160 AD2d 787 [1990], lv dismissed 76 NY2d 889 [1990]). Thus, plaintiff broker was properly granted partial summary judgment on its claim for a commission.

Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, based on documents that were either incomplete, unsigned, undated or undelivered, was properly denied for lack of substantive proof to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to such relief. Moreover, defendants' argument that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because the proposed contract...