Srour v. Dwelling Quest Corp., 842 N.E.2d 13 (NY 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Srour v. Dwelling Quest Corp., 842 N.E.2d 13 (NY 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dorfman v. SkinnyBond Inc. (nysupctnewyork, 2026-03-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dorfman v. SkinnyBond Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2026 · confidence medium
The rule that a salesman earns a commission the moment a buyer indicates that he or she is willing and able to enter into the transaction is usually applied in the context of brokerage agreements for the sale of real estate (see Srour v Dwelling Quest Corp., 5 NY3d 874, 875 [2005]; Feinberg Bros.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Steve Elliot v. Teplitsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, parties to a brokerage agreement are free to add whatever conditions they wish to their agreement, including a condition that closing of title occur before the broker is deemed to have earned a commission (see Srour v Dwelling Quest Corp., 5 NY3d 874, 875 [2005]; Feinberg Bros.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pachter v. BERNARD HODES
NY · 2008 · confidence medium
In that the applicable statute—article 6 of the Labor Law— does not provide an answer to this question, we must look to the common law. [4] Under the common law, "`a broker who produces a person ready and willing to enter into a contract upon his employer's terms ... has earned his commissions'" ( Srour v Dwelling Quest Corp., 5 NY3d 874, 875 [2005], quoting Feinberg Bros.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." MOREL v. GOYA FOODS, INC.
D.N.J. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“In that event, the commission will not be deemed ‘earned’ or vested until computation of the agreed-upon formula.” Id.; see also Srour v. Dwelling Quest Corp., 842 N.E.2d 13, 13 (N.Y. 2005) (explaining that the parties “are free to add whatever conditions they may wish to their agreement” (quoting Feinberg Bros.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group
2d Cir. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
However, under common law, in the absence of a written agreement, a commission is deemed to have been earned “upon sale.” See Jacobs v. Macy’s East, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 607, 608-09 , 693 N.Y.S.2d 164, 166 (2d Dep’t 1999) (denying dismissal of a complaint for improper deductions under section 193 where plaintiffs alleged that no contract existed and that their commissions were therefore earned upon sale); see also Srour v. Dwelling Quest Corp., 5 N.Y.3d 874, 875 (2005) (observing that, absent an agreement to the contrary, “the common-law rule is that ‘a broker who produces a person rea…
examined Cited "see, e.g." Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group, Inc. (3×)
2d Cir. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
However, under common law, in the absence of a written agreement, a commission is deemed to have been earned “upon sale.” See Jacobs v. Macy’s East, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 607, 608-09 , 693 N.Y.S.2d 164, 166 (2d Dep’t 1999) (denying dismissal of a complaint for improper deductions under section 193 where plaintiffs alleged that no contract existed and that then-commissions were therefore earned upon sale); see also Srour v. Dwelling Quest Corp., 5 N.Y.3d 874, 875, 808 N.Y.S.2d 128 , 842 N.E.2d 13 (2005) (observing that, absent an agreement to the contrary, “the common-law rule is that ‘a…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marco Srour, Appellant,
v.
Dwelling Quest Corp., Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 22, 2005.
842 N.E.2d 13
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Law Offices of Steven M. Nachman, New York City (Steven M. Nachman of counsel), for appellant., Frederic Walker, New York City, for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the order of the Appellate Term reinstated. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

[*875] Although the common-law rule is that “a broker who produces a person ready and willing to enter into a contract upon his employer’s terms . . . has earned his commissions,” the “parties to a brokerage agreement are free to add whatever conditions they may wish to their agreement” (Feinberg Bros. Agency v Berted Realty Co., 70 NY2d 828, 830 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, the rental agreement obligated defendant-broker to assist plaintiff in renting a “suitable apartment” and provided that the broker’s commission was to be paid “at the time of lease signing”; however, the apartment had become uninhabitable by the time the landlord signed the lease. Accordingly, defendant-broker did not satisfy the brokerage agreement’s condition, and is not entitled to any commission.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.