Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Eastern Consolidated Properties, Inc. v. Adelaide Realty Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 18, 1999Published
1ConcurrenceRubin, J.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court is bound by the holding in Graff v Billet (64 NY2d 899, affg 101 AD2d 355) to dismiss the complaint in this matter. However, while I am constrained to concur in the result, I consider the reasoning of the dissenting opinions in Graff to better reflect established principles of contract law. I conclude that further consideration should be given to the question of what constitutes a default under a brokerage agreement.
In or about April 1995, Theodore Samourkas, acting on behalf of defendants Adelaide Realty Corp. and Harrow Realty Corp., entered…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Wood v. . Duff-GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- United States v. SeckingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Merritt Hill Vineyards Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Arrington v. New York Times Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.