Wolf v. Wohl — 103 Misc. 2d 1044

Majority

p. 1044

Lee Wolf, Respondent, v Bernice Wohl, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

June 19, 1980

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Ferzinger Wohl Finkelstein & Rothman (Ronald G. Wohl of counsel), for appellant. George Fidel and Leslie W. Rubin for respondent.

p. 1045

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order is unanimously reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed.

A lease is both a contract and a conveyance of an estate or interest in land (1 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant [2d ed], §§ 2, 3). Since the lease and occupancy of the apartment are inextricably related to the sale of shares in the co-operative corporation (see Matter of State Tax Comm. v Shor, 43 NY2d 151 , 157; Frank v Rubin, 59 Misc 2d 796 ), a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating the sale of such shares comes within the purview of section 5-701 of the General Obligations Law and section 442-d of the Real Property Law (see Frank v Rubin, supra; Sebel v Williams, 88 Misc 2d 411 ). The plaintiff herein was not a licensed real estate broker or a salesperson and the agreement to pay commission was not in writing. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover commissions.

Concur: Pittoni, P. J., Slifkin and O’Gorman, JJ.

Cases cited

State Tax Commission v. Shor 43 NY2d 151 N.Y. 1977-11-21 at 157 p. 1045
Frank v. Rubin 59 Misc 2d 796 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969-01-30 p. 1045
Sebel v. Williams 88 Misc 2d 411 N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1976-07-19 p. 1045