Sentences with phrase «brokers against the plaintiffs»

The court ruled in favor of the brokers against the plaintiffs.

Not exact matches

Supply Corp. v. Petrocelli, decided by the New York Court of Appeals on November 19, 2012, the plaintiff claimed against its insurance broker that it requested bodily injury coverage for its employees at its Bronx facility, in the event an injury occurred, that the broker failed to procure.

Joseph P. Day Realty Corp. v. Chera (308 A.D. 2d 148)- broker's complaint for commissions reinstated where questions of fact exist as to whether broker was the procuring cause of a commercial tenant and if there was an implied contract which arose from landlord's acceptance of the benefits of broker's services; broker must plead and prove a contract of employment, express or implied, and in the absence of an express contract, an implied contract may be established in some cases by the mere acceptance of the labors of the broker; broker failed to establish that it was a third party beneficiary of lease agreement between landlord and tenant where provisions in lease merely provided for indemnification between the parties and did not expressly set forth that one party would be obligated to pay the broker's commission; indemnification provisions in the lease agreement do provide evidence of implied contract of employment with landlord where landlord agreed to indemnify tenant against brokerage commission claims from all brokers including plaintiff and where, to the contrary, tenant's reciprocal indemnification excluded plaintiff; triable issues of fact exist as to whether broker was the procuring cause where broker introduced the parties, showed the space to tenant's representatives, was involved in weekly negotiations with the parties over the lease terms, conveyed offers on behalf of tenant to landlord and participated in the meeting with the landlord and tenant at which the lease terms were finalized

3d 143 A)- small claims court's dismissal of actions against broker affirmed where the evidence fairly supports a finding that the broker satisfactorily performed its contractual obligations and had no part in any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining plaintiff's agreement to lease the apartment; claims that broker engaged in dishonest or misleading advertising or demonstrated untrustworthiness or incompetency in violation of RPL § 441 (c) are matters solely within in the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State

¶ 1 After purchasing a home in Enid, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Jason Stauff (Buyer) filed an action alleging violations of Oklahoma's Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act) and negligence against the sellers, real estate broker, and home inspectors.1 Buyer appeals a single trial court order granting 1) summary judgment in favor of Defendants Kimberly Bartnick and her husband, Roy Bartnick (collectively the Bartnicks or Sellers) and also 2) the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 2012 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Paramount Homes Real Estate Co. (Broker or Paramount).