Legal Opinion
Futersak v. Perl
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 25, 2010PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*898OPINION OF THE COURT
Ira B. Warshawsky, J.
Preliminary Statement
Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint in motion sequence No. 1. Defendants argue that plaintiff provided defendants with unlicensed real estate brokerage services; therefore, section 442-d of the Real Property Law precludes plaintiffs recovery. Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment on its causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in motion sequence No. 2. Plaintiff argues that pursuant to a written agreement with defendants, he is entitled to a percentage of the post-expense…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. GiancontieriNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Breed v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Futersak v. PerlAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011