From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rexford Realty Group, Inc. v. Scofield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 10, 1980
77 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

July 10, 1980

Appeal from the Monroe Supreme Court.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Cardamone, Doerr, Witmer and Moule, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: It is well settled that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker is deemed to have earned his commission when he produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller (Lane — The Real Estate Dept. Store v. Lawlet Corp., 28 N.Y.2d 36, 42). The broker's right to a commission is not dependent upon the performance of the realty contract or the receipt by the seller of the selling price unless such conditions are part of the brokerage agreement (Hecht v Meller, 23 N.Y.2d 301, 305). In this action to recover a real estate broker's commission, it is not disputed that plaintiff was responsible for procuring a signed purchase offer for the purchase of defendants' property, which offer, according to the pleadings, "was contingent upon the sellers obtaining all approvals for the existing trailerpark sight [sic] as required by all governmental authorities." The purchase offer was accepted in writing in the following language: "I hereby accept the above offer and agree to sell on the terms and conditions set forth and to pay Rexford Realty Group, Inc., 7% seven percent brokerage commission and the deposit here made may be applied thereon." Thereupon, in our view, plaintiff had performed its contract with defendants and had earned its commission (see M.I. Bernett, Inc. v. Bossert, 283 App. Div. 952, affd 308 N.Y. 792). While defendants attempted at trial to show that they had made diligent but unsuccessful efforts to procure approvals from appropriate governmental authorities, they failed to raise an issue of fact as to plaintiff's right to a broker's commission. It may not be drawn either from the duly accepted purchase offer or from the testimony at trial that plaintiff's right to a commission was conditioned upon defendants' procurement of such approvals. Thus the trial court properly directed a verdict against defendants.


Summaries of

Rexford Realty Group, Inc. v. Scofield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 10, 1980
77 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

Rexford Realty Group, Inc. v. Scofield

Case Details

Full title:REXFORD REALTY GROUP, INC., Respondent, v. JOHN SCOFIELD et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 10, 1980

Citations

77 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

Smyczynski v. Goeseke

Interest shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed (CPLR 5001, subd…