Realty Law Digest
Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses 'Saunders Ventures v. Morrow,' 'Estate of Parisi,' and 'In re Jian Min Lei v. NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development.'
June 12, 2018 at 02:17 PM
3 minute read
Brokerage—Real Estate Broker Entitled to Half Commission Since Efforts Were Critical to Sale
i.e.
Broker, Seller and Purchaser each represents and warrants to the other that it has not dealt with any other broker in connection with this sale other than [Seller's broker] and [plaintiff] and Seller shall pay Broker any commission earned pursuant to a separate agreement between Seller and Broker….
The commission payable to the Selling Broker shall be the lessor of the Selling Broker Commission as described in both, or 50 percent of the total commission actually collected by the Exclusive Broker. No commission is due unless and until title passes to a broker procured by the Selling Broker and the commission is collected by the Exclusive Broker.
It was not meant by these cases,…that the broker must of necessity be present and an active participator in the agreement of buyer and seller when the agreement is actually concluded. He must just as effectively produce and create the agreement, though absent when it is completed and taking no part in the arrangement of its final details.
Comment: Saunders Ventures v. Morrow, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co., Case No. 033638/2011, decided Feb. 20, 2018, Hudson, J.
Partition—Surrogate Court—Proceeding Dismissed for Lack of SubjectMatter Jurisdiction—Majority Owners of Real Property Were Not Directly Interested in the Estate's Administration
The Surrogate's Court's subject matter jurisdiction originates in the New York State Constitution which provides the court's power extends “over all actions and proceedings relating to the affairs of decedents, probate of wills, administration of estates and actions and proceedings arising thereunder or pertaining thereto”…. The Surrogate's Court Procedure Act legislatively codifies this grant of jurisdiction and states the Surrogate's Court's has “all the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution and all other authority and jurisdiction now or hereafter conferred upon the court by any general or special statute or provision of law, including this act”…. Indeed this court's powers are so broad that, “'for the Surrogate's Court to decline jurisdiction, it should be abundantly clear that the matter in controversy in no way affects the affairs of a decedent or the administration of his estate'”…. The Surrogate's Court powers to fulfill its jurisdictional mandate are “full and complete general jurisdiction in law and in equity to administer justice”…. Moreover, so long as the Surrogate's Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a controversy, its powers are equal to that of the Supreme Court…. Based upon this broad definition of this court's subject matter jurisdiction, an action for partition, would, at least conceptually, fall within this court's constitutional and statutory mandate….
In the Matter of the Estate of Parisi, Surrogate's Ct., Queens Co., Case No. 2017-1071/A, decided Feb. 6, 2018, Kelly, J.
Landlord-Tenant—Succession—Income Affidavit Is Not Conclusive Evidence
Comment: I n re Jian Min Lei v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, App. Div., 1st Dept., Index No. 157409/15, decided Feb. 15, 2018. Sweeny, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Oing, JJ. All concur. Scott E. Mollen is a partner at Herrick, Feinstein.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 2Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 3Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 4Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 5Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250