Strough Real Estate Assoc., Inc. v Bowen

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Strough Real Estate Assoc., Inc. v Bowen 2012 NY Slip Op 30920(U) April 5, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 11663/2010 Judge: William B. Rebolini Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] Short Fonn Order SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK LA.S. PART 7 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: WILLIAM B. REBOLINI Justice Strough Real Estate Associates, Inc., Index No.: 11663/20 I0 Plaintiff, -againstVmcent Bowen, Defendant. Motion Sequence No.: 002; MG Motion Date: 1119/11 Submitted: 1/18/12 Motion Sequence No.: 003; XMD Motion Date: 12114/11 SubIIlltted: 1!l8!l2 Attorney for Plaintiff: Clerk of the Court Michael G. Walsh, Esq. 860 Montauk Highway, Unit 4 Water Mill, NY I 1976 Attorney for Defendant: Bennett & Read, LLP 212 Windmill Lane Southampton, NY 11968 Upon the following papers numbered I to 69 read upon this motion for summary judgment: Notice of Motion and supporting papers, 1 - 20; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers, 21 57; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers, 58 - 69. This is an action to recover a brokerage commission. Defendant entered into an"exc1usive right to sell" brokerage agreement dated August 13, 2009 with plaintiff to procure a purchaser for defendant's property known as 73 Pine Neck Avenue, Sag Harbor, Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, New York. The agreement provided that the commission on any sale would be five percent of the gross sale price and that the agreed asking price for the property was $1,399,000.00. Plaintiff found prospective purchasers, non-parties Daniel O'Connell and Susan O'Connell (the O'Connells). [* 2] Strough Real Fstatl' v. Bowell Index No.: 1166J/2010 Page 2: Th", (YConllt.:lb, ~ISpurchasers. ~lIld dcf~ndan!. ,IS seller. or sale. execuk'u a contr~let or sale dutcd SL'plL'll1lk'r ~cl. 2009 ~lS\\le1l as riders to the contract P~lragr,lph 46 of tile first (sc1ler' s) rider pnlvlc!es 'TIllS transaction lIlciuded the eXisting dod and S",I[(.',rhas pmvlded COplCS to Purchaser or thc DEe and Trustee permits for said doc'" 1\lr~lgr~lph 12 oillle second (buyer's) rider imlJcates, SLlppkmclltlllg par.tgraph 46 of Selkr"s [·ider. selkr represents ~ll1d warral11S tll,lI bul"he<ld arc currently legal and have been III existence III Its pn:sen1. localion since hefore Septcmber J. 1973 Seller reprcsents that the dock at the premises \V.tS cOllstructed In compliance WIth tile requirements of the permIt issucd by tile NYS Dcp,lrtment or Conservation (NYSDEC). As a condition to closing, Seller sll,lIl provide proof that tl10 NotICe of Commencement and Notice of Completioll of the: proJect were properly and timely riled:.is required by llle pennll or prOVide evidence that lhe NY S D EC has Slgned off 011the constructi on Seller rurther represellts ,lll d w <ltT~lI1ts that tIll.: Board or Trustees of tile Towil of Soutllamplon were "slgned 01T' on by the local departmellts havingjunscliction over such work to the extenl th,11 sign oft" was reqUired. Seller shall .tlso provide purclwsers with pLltls ror the dock. l\lr~lgrdph 11 of tile l"irst (seJ1er's) ridel' prOVides thaI "In the evel1ltllal tile Seller shall elect or he e,lllllkd to terminate thIS .lgreemellt pursuant to any or its terms and con(!Jliolls hereunder. It is ullderstood ,1Ild agreed that Purchaser. wlthll1 tell (10) ddYs after receipt or Seller's nOliCC ore1ccllon to t('mnll,tte. sil.dl have the option to notify Seller that Purchaser waives the condition under wl1](..:11 Seller ll~lSelected to terminate s,mlC IfPurcllaser so notifies, then Purchaser and Sellcr sh~l!1 continue Wllh the e()l1lr~lct as if tile proVISIOns under whtch Sellcr elected 10 lerminate did not (;\XISt and tile c1osi ng of tltk sll.J11 take pI :.ice In accordance WItll all remain ing lerms and condlli ons of the COllll"<lU:' Defendallt \V,lS Lllwble to sallsfy the comlitlon 10 closing III paragr,lpll 12 ortlle secolHl (buyer' s) ridn of proof tiwi the Notice or COinpleuon or the dock was properly <lml timely i'ileu as required hy lhL' pel"llllt or th~lt the NYSDEC hdS SIgned oIl Oil the. constructlOIl. He LllliLitcraJly cclllc0lkd the contract 01"sale 011 111,11. b'lSis. I'lainlill cOl1lll1el1l'ed thiS actloll 011 rvl:trch ::;J. 20 I 0 to rcc()ver a h["()l-;el-~lgeC0ll11lllSSl0n (11' :,169.():')().(J() from defendan!. PbimitT CI,lII1lS Ilwt il was duly licensed 10 trCllls'lcI busllwss ~ISa 1"\::11 ,~sl:,lIe hroker al liS hr:l11c1l otliCl~ located .It S4 Main StrL'CI. III Sdg Il:lI"bm. New YorK. Ill,lt it \\i,IS el11ployed by de fell dan t pursll:\Il I.10 lhe wri llen :lgl'eellll'llt dated A ugList 11, 2()()9 to proc u re ~lpu n.;klsi.'1" ror IIIS pl"OpCrIy: alld th,l1 dcfcmbnt ,lgreed 10 pay p 1~II[111f $69, 9:')() _00 for lis services ill pr()c llri IIg such f :.t pu rch'hL'I". In dddi t iOil. P I~1IIIiITc l~lIms I11 II.foull d pu rc hasers. the (r Co [\1Ie11s.\V110wcre re,ld y. ,lhk i ,II ,lIld wdlllig to purCh,lSL: the property ,II the prIce dlld terills agreed to hy defL'lId'llll: alld that p];tliltifl dlily pedorme,d ,ill or tilL' cOlldltlons of tile coniract and L'J1lploYll1cnt 011 Its part. Pl<tlllllil ,t1S() Ci,lIlllS tll'lt dcklllbnt. ,tbsellt :my r<lult 011 tilL' p~ln 01' plaitllirror the (YCollnells, refused to seillhe properly 10 the (YCollllclls L'ven thougll defcndatll had acccpted them dS purchasers hased 011 the st,lte'd terlllS dild COlldiliOIlS of the cUlltracl ofsalc .1l1d th", O'Collilells we're ready_ ,Ihle dlld Willing to purcl1:lsl' till' prupel"ty UPOli ek'fL'IllLillt'S terms for tile listing price of$I ..N9.(JOO.OO .. payable ~dl ill c~lsh. PblllliiT [* 3] Slnlugh 1{{':l1 Estate v. Bowen Imle:..: No.: II6flJI:2()IO I)age J runI1LI-ciallm; th~lt Its COll11lliSsion of 1\69.950.00 is nO\v due and owing. despll<: due Ch:I11JIHJ. Dc rendan t .S ,IllSwer asserts arri mwll \ie defenses or I,leK of persotl<J IJuri sdlcllUn. fai ILI :: to stale n a c ,IUSI.'or dctioll for bre~lCh of contract, and that the broKer~lge agreemen t provides that the C0111 Iss lOll 111 IS due UPOIl S'lie. wlw.:h did not take pL.lce. !lot when plalllll!T procun.:s a buycr who IS ready, wdling dlld .Ihle lULlos" By reply. plalllufr asserted that person ¢. 1 1 JUJ"lsdlction W~ISohtllned over derelllbnl ,!lid att"lcl1ed a copy of the ~dli(bvit of service pursuant to CPLR ~30S (2). asser-led lhal: the complainl states a C:luse of ,lCtlon for nrcach of contract and asserted that a contract of sale \'V~lS iully executed and a down paymenl was Icndcl-cd by the prospeclive purdwsers on or about Septernher 17. 20U9therehy s~lllSfyi ng tire terms of the hrokerag~ agreemcllt. Plalllliff now Illoves 1'01'sunnnury judgment In its favor on its complaint. III SLlpport of the motion, plaintlfl ~L1bmits the aflidavlts of Julie MaS~O!l. a sales associate for plaintiff. and SCOl! Strough. plallltilTs president. license details concerning plaintiff and Its employees from the New York Depanmelll or State Occup:llional Licensing Managemellt System. the pleadings, the brokerage agree Ille nl. Ihe con trac! of sale ¢.l1d attached rIdeI'S and one cel"ti fi ed portion and one u ncert Ified porI Ion l or de1Cl1danl's deposltlon teslirnony from October 15.2010. In addition. phllilriflsuhlllits a copy of [he NYSDEC permit issucd to defendant explri Ilg June 20, 2004 for the ins1"albtlon of ramps wld slairs dnd other structures wllh respect to a dock on the subject property. a relatcd pcrlllllissued by the I~oard of 'frustees 01' Ihe Freeholders and C01l1monalny of the Town of Southamplon. various e-t11,IJis ~1I1d !cUers hetween the parties and the summons and compla11lt 01 ¢. related action In the Supreme Court. \ Sun-olk County. cntitled. Damel (YConncll and Susan O·C'onnell. plaintiffs. against Vincenl Bowell and Birlwhistle & (Iibson, P.c.. defendants, under Sulfo!" County mclex llumber 06526/2010 comillenced Oil Fehruary 19.2010 for speCIfic performance of the contract of sale_ l>efClldant cross-movcs for sumlllMY .Judgment dismiSSing the compl~lllll on the grounds that tilc terms of the hroker,\ge agreemcilt provides for the payment or ~lcommission upon ,I s,lIe. not UPOIl pl"OCUrCillent of purcklscrs re;.ldy, willing and dhle to purchase the property: that III ,lilY event. tile (YCOllllClls \Vcr-e not I"(,:lely,wdling and ahle purchasers inasilluch as lhey failed 10 <lgrce to W~l1ve the dock COIIllllgcncy claus..:: ,1Ild that Scot! Strough and Julie Massoll used :.lcourse of conduct that was deln l11enl,ri and disloy,111o defendant hy showing the O'CollneJls olher properties evell <lI'terthey signed the C()ntr~lCt of sale ,met by exchanging e-maJis and correspondence with the ()"Collllcils wilhout d Iscl OSIIlg thei r con tents to deklldan 1. In support of hIS cross Illoll on. defenddll t SLl ill its, .l1nong olher b th Ings. his alTida VIt. the pleadi ngs. t he brokerage agreemcnt. the contrdcl- of sale ,ml! "lttdched riders_ the cerlil'ied dcposltion trallscripts of Julie Masson and SCOll Snough und t'-l11~l1lcorrespollliellce. I)dcnd,lllt' s sllbnllsslnlls ,llso Inel ude a letler dated Fehruary i2. 20 10 from defcnd,lIlt' S auol"lley IU lhe ,1L1nrncy I-or till' O'Connells slatlllg tlwt hiS CiJCllt had not be<:::n ahle to obtain eVidence rn)lll the NYSDl:(' lil~lllhe eXlsllllg dock conslruction WdS satlsf,ll'tory as reqUired by p~lIagr,lpil 12 of the miLT ll1~ll hiS clienl h<rd deCIded to c<rned the contract of sale for th,\t reasoll. alld llr~lt lile C()l1tr~let dowl1 l,aYllwnl would he rclul"Ilt'd. By hiS ul"fid~IVil datl'd Novenlber 20.2011. defendant conlends that Scoll Strough ,lIld .iulie MdSSOI1 did Iwl Inform him ur disclose tu him ulltll ,litel' the hrokerage agrel;menl Sl!:pllllg llwt lil,' CUlllllllssioll would he due upon s~lk and Ih~l1they did noltell him that the O"("onnclls wcre willing \() [* 4] Strough Real Estat(' 'I.'. Bowen Index No.: 11663/2010 Page -l- W,l1VC dock COlltlllgl'I1CY tlw cI,wsc and close '-Itthe sclllllg pncc In the contracl of suit:. In ,HJdiLiol1" dcfend,IlH contends that he "cLively attempted to ObWlll a certificate of completion and wus shockcu to k,lrll after signing Lhe contract oC sule lImt the dock did not conform to NYSDEC staml:1rds and th,lt despite negoti,ILing ;.l proposeu settlement ,llld perfonmng suggested repairs. the NYSDEC heC,lI11e ullresponsi ve after miJ-2009 He also argues llwt instead of ad vising the 0 ·Collilelis 10 w,live the dock clause :Ind closl-' ,It full cOl1tract price. SCOll Strough ami Julie M,ISSO[lwere secretly working ag,llilst defendant by trying Lo COllVlIlce hlln to accept an escrow or abatclncnt of the purch:.lse price and shOWing the O· Connells other pl"Opertles dunng the pendency of the contract of sale thereby Ixeaclllllg their dUlYof loyalty to defemlan!. The elemenLs of elC:lUSC actIon to recover damugcs for breach ofcontraCl are ( I) the ex istence of of a contrJCL (2) the phlintiJTs performance under the contract, (3) the dcfenc!'\Il(·s breach of thc COlllr'IC1.and (4) resulting damages (see. lP Morgan Chase v. J.H, Eke. of N.Y., lnc" 69 AI):;d 001. Ben 12,,,1 ept. 2010J; Furia v. Furia, II() AD2d694. 695 12,,,1 epl , 19:::;61:see also, I>;.dmclto Partners. D D 1..1"'.v. AJW QLI~rlified Partners. LLC. 8:; AD3d ~W4.S0612"<IDept., 20111). It is a lVelJ·-settled rule III thiS SLate lh,lt in rile absence oj' Ull:.J.greelllenlto the contrary. a real estate broker WIll be (keillcd to have earned a commission when the broker produces ,I buyer who is ready, wlilmg and ahle LOpurchase:11 the lerms set hy the sellcr (see. LanepReal Estate DeD!. Store v. LawleL Corp .. 2X NY2d 3611971 j), A broker IS ellLltled 10 recover u CO\l1misslon jf he or she establishes (I) that he or she IS duly IJcellsed (Re,l! l)roperLy Law ~442-d). (2) that he or she had u conlruct. cxpress or implied. With the party to be charged WIth paYlllg the conHl11SSIOll.and n) that he or she was Lhe procurlng cause of the Sdle (sec, F[-iedlaml Realtv Inc" v. Pidzz,l, 271 AD2d J5 I 12 Dep!.. 2000];seealso, Julien J SL"udley.lnc. v. New York News. [nc .. 70 NY2d 62811987]; PozIwnskl v. Wan£!. 84 ADJd 104812",1 Depl.. 2011]; KaplonBelo Assocs .. Inc. v. I)' Angelo, 79 AD3d 93012,,,1 Dl2pt.. 2010]) Real estat..: hrokercomrnisslOl1s :11"1.' llot earned unti I :Jlld unless the person produced by the brol\er [·eaches an agrecrnclll wnh the owne:r noL only us 10 price hut also as Lothe terms upon whIch the sale IS Lohe mack (see, Kaelll1 v, Warner. 27 NY2d J52, 3.:'i5 11971]: sec. Cnfasi Real EsLatc. Inc. v. Harv Enters .. InC-. 60 AD:1J S02 12,,<1 epL.. D 11C1 2009]). "·At tile ]LlIlcture thaL the: brokc:r produces ,1Ilacceptable huyer he has fully performed his P:lrt of Lhe agreement with Lhe vendor and hiS right to commiSSIon becmnes cnforcIhle. The bro].;er"s ulUllldte ngllt to cOInpe:nsation has never becn held to be dependellt upolltl1e perfOlTnelllCeoftl1..: [\':tlty COJltr,lcl or tile: recclpt by the seller ol"the seiling pm:e unless the brokerage agn.:emcnt with Lhe vendor speCifically so conditioned payrncllt"' (lkchl v. Meller. 2~ NY2d ~OJ, ~O) 11%.'-)1"see. M(,l'()x Rc:lilY (·or)). v. Rose:, 202 AD2J ,.+o411'HI Dcrt. 19(41). Tilc sdler C,IIIprutect. ag,lIllst the risk OI"Il:lVlllgtll pay tile hrokcr:lge commissioll by eiLher conditionlt1g the hl"Okt'r,lgl' cOlltract. so that COIlllllisSlOllS would only be p,lld uut of the procecds of thc s,lic. or (:()Jl(ractlng witllthe buyer Lh,rthe would elthel" Il;.Ivc: 0 purd1Jse the property Irrespective of Its condnion on the clOSIng delle or p,ry tile hroker· s eanll'd [ L:omOlISSIOIl f he clected to reSCInd Lhe contract (sec. Hecht v. Meller. 2:1 NY2d:10 I 1196S I). I The suhject broker,rge Clgreell1ent expressly prOVIdes that ··SREA IStrough Real Est,ILe l\ssoci,ILesi Ivill ddlgently IllVestlgalc ,llld develop ollcrs for the sale of the Property 'It cvery :.IpprOpn'l1c opportunity The commISSIon on any sale will he 5?i. oj"the, gross SeliC' price. If ,I hUYl'l" is procured hy SREA. 100% or lhe cornll1lSSIOI1 will be p,lyable (0 the selllllg exclUSIve hrnkel". [* 5] Slnmgh Real Estal(' \'. Bowell Index No.: 11663/2010 Page ::; However. If a hrok~r who has ;j co-hroke [sic] arrallg~m~nt with SREA procurcs a buyer. the commissIOn w1l1 be split 011 a 50/50 baSIS w1th [h~ selling broker entitled to 50% and SREA [he remaining 50l}k In any l:velH. the commission paid by you shall not exceed 5% of the selling pric~'" Here. plaintiff sulliciently pleaded a cause of actioll for the recovery or a real estate broker's C()l1llll1SSI()l1 (sec. Salami Real Estate v. Conklin. 139 AD2d 639 [2"d Dept.. J 988j). tinder the express tcrlllS of the hrokerage agrecmcnt. plalntiJT h<.ldan exclusive right to sell, cntllling It to receive a cotllmission for ~lI1Y sak~. that IS s~tles "transaction." that occurred during [h~ I[re of the ~lgrccll1elll. whether or 110tthe broker h~ld hcelllhc procuring cause of the s;..tle(see. Rennert Diana & Co .. InC. v, Zis).;tI1u. 191 /\D2d 54512,,,1 Dept.. 1993]: Charles E. Hyde Realtv Y. Yerg~lI1lan, 150 AD2d 417 [2,,<1 Dept.. 1989]). The s,IIeS tralls,lCtion took place when the derendant and the O'Connells entered inlo ¢. written contract of s~lle(~. ld.). Thus. upon the signing of the contract of S'l!c. a commISSIon became I due (sec. id.). In JdJltioll. the broker's right to a com1111sS10n1$not dependent upon performallce of the reJI cstJte contract unless there is an agreement to the contrary (see. Mecox Reallv COIn. v. Rose. 202 AD2d 40-1- [2'1l1Dcp!.. 1994]; CornellJ and Broad Streets. Inc. v. Chase, 186 AD2d 341 [3nJ Dept.. 1992 J). Notahly. the brokerage agreement did not condition the commission upon closing or the passing of titk (compare. Norma Reynold Realtv. Inc. v. Edclman. 29 AD3d 969 12'0.1 epL 2006[: O lJawn's (,old Realtv v. D'H!llCSC.304 AD2d 519 [2"d Dcpt.. 2003]: Kaplon-Bclo Assocs .. Inc. v. IYAn9:elo. 79 AD3d 930 12'0.1 ept.. 2010]). Thus. the facttlm[ a dOSlllg did not occur 1$lITele\'ant to D the issue ofplainlilT"s ClllillcmCll! to 11$ commission (see. Paul J. Baver Realt\' v. Perry. 208 AD2d 102-1[3"1 Dl.'pL I 994j)_ Moreover. tlu.:<.:ontra<.:t sale Included the signatures of defendant seller and the O'Cnnndls. of the purchase price. the address of the property. and a clOSing date (sec. Ciencral Ohligations L"w ~5-70312 j; Century 21 Volpe Realty. Inc. v. Jhong Kim. 231 AD2d 667 12,,,1 Dept.. 1996 [. h, to appeal dislllissed 89 NY2d <) 11 [ 1996[). There was cledrly a Il1cetillgofthe mInds with respect to the essential terms customanly encouillercd in real property s~des lransactions and defellcbnl clearly acquiesced to the O·Conllells· ch~lllges to thccontr.lCt or sale (scc. ViharCollst .. lnc, v. Konelchv. 70SADld ~ 19 [~lId rkp1.. 20101; Stolen v. Bnwz Realty Corp .. J7:\ AJ)2d 927 [3",1 DepI.. 1(91): see also. Cassella Fr~lll).;. Inc. Y. P.G.( '. Assocs .. ~64 AD2d 375 [2'lLl cp!... ICJ99[). Whcrher or not defcndant was enti1led ul1Lkr D the contract or s.1Ie documents tll tcn1llnatc the. contract of sale and the faIlure of the pJrlles 10 go to clOSing ,Irc Immaterial to this <.Iel1on. As for plaillliff's duty of loyalty. during the process of facilitating a real estate transactIon. a hroker owes a dUlY of undivided loyalty 10 Its principal (seL'. Dubhs v. Strihling & Assocs .. 96 NY2d 337 [200 I! ). If this duty is hreached. the hroker forl1:lIS hiS or her nght to a commiSSion. regarJIL'ss of wllL'ther Jamagcs were incurred (sec. Wendt v. Fischer. 2-l-3 NY -1-39[ 1926]: sec. Dou,!las Elliman I.LC v. Trctter. X-lAD3d-l--l-6 [I'I Dept.. 2011 fl. In Sonnenschein v. J)ouf!las Elliman-(ilhhons& lVL's. 96 NY2J 369. 375-37612001]. the Court of Appeals held that. Other jurisdit.:liolls havc held that. III thl, abscnc<.: of an agrcclllellt with ¢. principal to I lhe conlr'lr)'. a hroker owes no dUly to refrdin rrolll "'olTering the properties of all [Its[ prlllclp~ds to ~l prospective customer'" (Collhvcll Banker COllllllCI\;ial {;roup v (·~lI11clh<.lCK P~lrK. 156 Anz. 226. 210. 751 P.2cl542. 546: McEv()y v. (ji nsherg. 345 01'1'. [* 6] Strough H:eal Estate v. Bowell Index No.: I 166_V2111O 1'a.:,:e 6 Mass. 7J3. 7":'7 189 N E,:2d 546. 5-n: see generally. Foley v. Mdlhi~ls.1 j 1 JOW~160, J '233 N.W. lOr) LClllon v J'vh:kkm. [57 MIch. 47."1. 121 N.W 77J. Wc find l[lIS approach to hc consIslL'nl with lhe Iwture and rllndamcl1t~li requirements of the re~d cst~lte marketplace ill Nt'w York Unkss ~lbroker and pnnc!JJa[ Slx'";clfical[y ~lgrcc olherv.,'lse. ~lbrOKer C'-lnnot be expccreu to dec[Ine a prospecri ve purchascr' S requesl to see dIlO1.hcr properly listed for sale with that broker. Any other rule would Llnrc~lsonab[y reSlralll a hrnker I'rom slln ultaneOllsJ y representing t \\10 or more pri I1ClpaJ wIlh si Il1ifar s propertics for fear or VIOJallIlg a fiduClary obhgation III the event a huyer chose the property of one principal over thai of another. SlIllIlarly. such a limitation woulu fnlslrule the Interests or sellers. who benefit from the opportulllly to market tlwJr properties to as 111,lnypotenlla[ purchasers as possIble. as well as the Intcrests 01' potenl L.tIbuyers, who 0 rtel1 req lIcst ex:posure to a !lumber or propertIes 111 rder to select o the one most suitable to then needs ~lI1dbudget. For these rC~lsons. we dec[lne to Impose upon ,dl hrokerllxllH:lpaJ relationshIps the restncti ve V1C\V broker dUlY th~ll of plaintrlls espouse. or course, ,I prrncipal [-emains free 10 enter Inlo ~1l1expliCit agreement with a hroker to achieve such an exclusivc arrangement. Inasmuch us Ihere was no excl uSlve arrangement bel ween pLllnti ff and defendant that pJainli ITand lis employees would not show other properties listed for sale With plainllffto any prospective purchasers uf derclllbnt"s suhject property. defcndant has failed to establJsh lh,l! p[;J1I1ttlTalld lIs employees hrC,Iched lis duty or l()y~illy to defendant by shOWIng uliler propertlcs to the O'Connel[s ~lllli cOITespond Ill.',;1,11 th Ihell1 without dcfclluant' s kllOWledgt~(see, id.). DeI'emL.lI1t·s rCll1aiIIIng:contenl ions \ are \vitholll ment. Therdore. defendant has !'ailcd to r~lISC tri~lbJe Issue of rdcl cOnCL~rIllIlg ,I pl~UIl!Iffs entitlement to Its comIllISSlon Accordingly. it IS ORJ)ERED tkItthls is further Inotlon by p[allltdT ror sumll1ary Judgment 111 favor is granted. dlld Il its ORDERED Ihat IhlS cruss Illotion by dcl"cndant for sU1lJl11a[-y ludgmcnt COlllpi;utlllS JCllled' anu It IS rurther OHDERED tilallile pl,lllltlllsilall sctrlcJudgtncnt (sec. 221\1'tTI~R *202.4,sl. '\J-~,J I),ltcd BON. WILI.IAM FINAL DISPOSITION dis[llisSllIg the t1/~ H. IlEBOLINI ¢ .I.S.c. NON-FINAl, DISI'OSITION

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.