Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
John HERKERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEMCO SERVICES INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Respondent.
Order (denominated decision and judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (E. Michael Kavanagh, J.), entered on or about June 23, 1999, which, in an action to recover a commission, granted defendant's motion to set aside the verdict in favor of plaintiff and for judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The trial court correctly held that defendant's acquisition of a company that provided the same building maintenance services as defendant was not, as a matter of law, a commissionable event under the parties' agreement. The interpretation of the contract urged by plaintiff would have defendant paying twice for the same business opportunity, first in the purchase price of the acquisition, and second in paying plaintiff a commission on that purchase. Such a commission would be in the nature of a finder's fee, for which no provision is made in the parties' agreement, and thus the claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][10] ). As the trial court held, it does not avail plaintiff that his efforts to find building maintenance accounts for defendant “may well have been the spark that ignited” the acquisition or that as a result of the acquisition many new building maintenance accounts were transferred to defendant. Any ruling in the case to the contrary made by another Justice on a pretrial motion for summary judgment is not binding on this Court (see, Tesciuba v. Shapiro, 166 A.D.2d 281, 282, 560 N.Y.S.2d 770, lv. denied, 77 N.Y.2d 803, 568 N.Y.S.2d 15, 569 N.E.2d 874).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)