TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McNeilly v. Rogers

David McNeilly v. Martin Rogers

McNeilly v. Rogers, 58 A.D.2d 724 (1977)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 30, 1977
Citations
58 A.D.2d 724396 N.Y.S.2d 2941977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12838

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

peal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 24, 1976 in Washington County, which granted plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint and (2) the judgment entered thereon. This is an action to recover a real estate *725 commission allegedly earned by plaintiff under a real estate broker listing agreement whereby defendant purportedly agreed to pay a commission to plaintiff upon plaintiff’s procuring a purchaser for certain property at the stated price and terms or at any other price and terms acceptable to defendant. As noted above, Special Term granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3213, and this appeal ensued. The order and judgment appealed from must be reversed. For plaintiff to prevail on his motion, his action must be "based upon an instrument for the payment of money only” (CPLR 3213), and, as such, he must be able to prove a prima facie case merely by proof of the instrument and defendant’s failure to make payments in accordance with its terms (Interinan Ind. Prods, v R. S. M. Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151 ; SeamanAndwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 AD2d 136 ). In this instance, however, additional proof dehors the instrument is necessary for plaintiff to succeed, as, for example, he must establish that he has procured a purchaser for the subject property at the contract price and terms or other acceptable price and terms. Order and judgment reversed, on the law, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Main, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1978: 11980: 11994: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Southold Development Corp.173 B.R. 63 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)
  2. Dubovsky & Sons, Inc. v. Schwartz75 A.D.2d 802 (1980)
  3. Jones v. CHC Industries, Inc.63 A.D.2d 1119 (1978)

Most recent

  1. In re Southold Development Corp.173 B.R. 63 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)
  2. Dubovsky & Sons, Inc. v. Schwartz75 A.D.2d 802 (1980)
  3. Jones v. CHC Industries, Inc.63 A.D.2d 1119 (1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Interman Indus. Prods. v. R. S. M. Electron Power, Inc., 332 N.E.2d 859 (N.Y. 1975) 173
Seaman-Andwall Corp. v. Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136 (1968) 136

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list