Case ID: misc_126/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Flicker, Appellant, v. Sadie G. Ragan, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    December 11, 1925.
    Brokers — real estate broker — rule that broker must procure purchaser financially able not applicable where contract of purchase executed.
    ' The rule that a broker, in order to earn his commission, must produce a purchaser who is financially able, does not apply, where an enforcible agreement has been entered into for the purchase of the property.
    Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of The Bronx, entered in favor of the defendant,
    
      Stanley Garten, for the appellant.
    
      Sidney B. Cardozo [Barnett J. Monka of counsel], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The dismissal of the complaint was erroneous. The rule that a broker, in order to earn his commission, must produce a purchaser who is financially able does not apply where an enforcible agreement has been entered into for the purchase of the property. The seller is deemed to have indicated his satisfaction with such purchaser’s financial ability by executing the contract. (Corbin v. Mechanics & Traders’ Bank, 121 App. Div. 744; Alt v. Doscher, 102 id. 344; Slocum v. Ostrander, 141 id, 380; affd., 205 N. Y. 617; Jaffe v. Lederer, 113 Misc. 356.) The judgment is, therefore, reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Churchill, JJ.