Legal Opinion

Ervin v. Cushman & Wakefield

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 10, 1990No. 89 Civ. 2175 (RPP)Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge.

Defendants Cushman & Wakefield of New Jersey (“C & W”) and Stephen Siegel (“Siegel”) move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff Scott A. Ervin (“Ervin”) brings this action 1) to recover a real estate commission of $210,000 under a Co-Broker Agreement entered into by the parties; 2) to recover $210,000 for breach of an oral agreement to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Meiri v. DaconCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  5. Jaclyn, Inc. v. Edison Brothers Stores, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API