From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collins Tuttle Co., Inc. v. Leucadia, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 17, 1989
153 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Summary

rejecting a claim that a quantum meruit recovery should be based on the benefit received from plaintiffs work

Summary of this case from Carlino v. Kaplan

Opinion

August 17, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).


The essential facts of this matter are not in dispute. Plaintiff served as the renting agent for the premises known as 315 Park Avenue South, New York, New York, and prepared a brochure, known as a "setup," describing the premises. It was compiled from information supplied by the corporate defendants and was periodically updated by plaintiff. In early 1984, the corporate defendants obtained a copy of the latest version of the setup, which they gave to another real estate broker who used it to interest British Land of America (BLA) in the premises. In August 1984, BLA entered into a contract with the corporate defendants to purchase the premises. Plaintiff played no part in introducing BLA to the sellers.

While Supreme Court correctly observed that plaintiff's fourth cause of action is broad enough to state a claim based upon quasi-contract (Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400), its conclusion that plaintiff might recover half of the brokerage commission on that basis is in error. Recovery on a claim premised upon quasi-contract or unjust enrichment is limited to the reasonable value of the services rendered by the plaintiff (Isaacs v Incentive Sys., 52 A.D.2d 550). In view of Supreme Court's finding pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g) that there was no exclusive sales agency agreement between the parties, measurement of plaintiff's recovery on the basis of one half of the brokerage commission actually paid, as in Interactive Props. v. Doyle Dane Bernbach ( 125 A.D.2d 265, 272), is entirely inappropriate.

Plaintiff is limited to recovery of the value of the brochure or setup which it prepared. The mere use of this sales material to interest the purchaser in acquiring the premises does not elevate plaintiff to the status of a cobroker on the transaction.

Concur — Asch, J.P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Collins Tuttle Co., Inc. v. Leucadia, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 17, 1989
153 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

rejecting a claim that a quantum meruit recovery should be based on the benefit received from plaintiffs work

Summary of this case from Carlino v. Kaplan

In Collins Tuttle & Co., where plaintiff prepared a brochure describing the premises where he was the renting agent, he was not entitled to unjust enrichment of half the brokerage commission paid to the broker who sold the premises.

Summary of this case from Dorfman v. Reffkin
Case details for

Collins Tuttle Co., Inc. v. Leucadia, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:COLLINS TUTTLE AND COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant, v. LEUCADIA, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Aug 17, 1989

Citations

153 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
544 N.Y.S.2d 604

Citing Cases

U.S. East Tel. v. U.S. West Commun

In determining the amount of West's enrichment, you may also consider such factors as to [sic] West had to…

Sparx Logistics H.K. v. Shoez, Inc.

The measure of restitution damages for an unjust enrichment claim is the "reasonable value" of the benefit…