Parker Realty Group, Inc. v. Petigny
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- East Hudson Level Flooring Systems Inc. v. RCB1 Nominee LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- East Hudson Level Flooring Systems Inc. - Adversary Proceeding (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Graciano Corp. v. Lanmark Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Gould v. Decolator, Cohen & DiPrisco, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Brian Trematore Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Walsh Construction Group, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Graciano Corp. v. Lanmark Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- R & B Design Concepts, Inc. v. Wenger Constr. Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- GPI Entertainment, LLC v. Aviv Façade Solutions (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Aquatic Pool & Spa Services, Inc. v. WN Weaver Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Segal v. Cooper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Minelli Construction Co. v. Volmar Construction, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Schutty v. Speiser Krause P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Casandra Properties, Inc. v. M.S.B. Development Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Recovery under the theory of quantum meruit is
*866 not appropriate where, as here, an express contract governed the subject matter involved (Miller v Schloss, 218 NY 400, 406-407 [1916]; see also Julien J. Studley, Inc. v New York News, 70 NY2d 628, 629 [1987]). Additionally, plaintiff failed to establish that the parties modified their exclusive brokerage agreement. In the absence of a valid governing exclusive brokerage agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to a commission on the sale to the ultimate buyer, as it was not the procuring cause of the sale (see Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206 [1980]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.