You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

NRT N.Y. LLC v. Johnson

Citations: 142 A.D.3d 825; 37 N.Y.S.3d 438Docket: 1200 154415/15

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; September 15, 2016; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, NRT New York LLC, known as The Corcoran Group, contested a decision from the Supreme Court of New York County denying its motion for summary judgment against an individual, Nancy Sale Frey Johnson. The primary legal issue revolved around the entitlement to a brokerage commission as per the terms of an exclusive brokerage agreement. The appellate court reviewed the lower court's decision, ultimately modifying it to grant summary judgment in favor of Johnson and dismiss the complaint filed by NRT New York LLC. The court found that the agreement explicitly required a closing of title as a condition precedent for earning a commission. However, the closing associated with the property sale transpired after the agreement's expiration and involved a party that was excluded under the agreement's terms. Consequently, the court ruled that NRT New York LLC was not entitled to a commission. The appellate court's decision was affirmed in part, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint without costs, with the Clerk instructed to enter the judgment.

Legal Issues Addressed

Condition Precedent for Broker's Commission

Application: The court held that a closing of title is a necessary condition precedent for a broker to be entitled to a commission under the exclusive brokerage agreement.

Reasoning: The court found that the exclusive brokerage agreement clearly stipulated that the closing of title was a condition precedent for the broker's entitlement to a commission.

Effect of Agreement Termination on Commission Entitlement

Application: The court determined that since the closing occurred after the termination of the agreement and with an excluded party, the plaintiff was not entitled to a commission.

Reasoning: Since no closing occurred before or after the termination of the agreement, and the condominium's Board of Managers did not take title, the plaintiff was not entitled to any commission.