WALTER G. FISCHER, AS ASSIGNEE OF JANE C. BROWN, EXECUTRIX &C., APPELLANT, v.
PANASIAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
87 N.Y.2d 958, 664 N.E.2d 501, 641 N.Y.S.2d 590 (1996).
February 20, 1996
1 No. 34(1996 NY Int. 35)
Decided February 20, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Clarence S. Barasch, for Appellant.
Submitted by J. Martin Obten, for Respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs,
and the question certified by the Appellate Division answered in the
affirmative.
Plaintiff Walter Fischer entered into a written brokerage agreement
with deceased defendant Peter Ohm whereby Ohm agreed to pay plaintiff
a finder's fee of $300,000 if plaintiff successfully arranged a loan
of $1.6 million for Peter Ohm, defendant Andrew Ohm, or any of the
companies in which the individuals had an equity participation,
including Panasian Communications, Inc. The agreement also provided
that the amount of the finder's fee would be adjusted if the loan was
higher or lower than $1.6 million.
Thereafter, Fischer procured a $1.75 million loan for Panasian
Communications, Inc. from Chase Manhattan Bank to finance Panasian's
acquisition of a television station. The loan to Panasian was
guaranteed by a number of corporate defendants controlled by Peter and
Andrew Ohm, including Pako Realty, Inc., which granted a mortgage to
Chase on real property as a part of its security for its guarantee.
Plaintiff demanded payment of the finder's fee due under the
brokerage agreement, but was paid only $37,000. He then brought suit
to recover the balance due under the agreement and to recover damages
based on two dishonored checks issued by Panasian. Defendants answered
and, inter alia, asserted a counterclaim alleging that pursuant to
General Obligations Law § 5-531 the maximum brokerage fee allowable
was $8,000, and therefore, plaintiff owed defendants a refund. Both
parties moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court, inter alia, granted
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the question
Plaintiff Walter Fischer entered into a written brokerage agreement with deceased defendant
The agreement also provided that the amount of the finder's fee would be adjusted if the loan
Thereafter, Fischer procured a $1.75 million loan for Panasian Communications, Inc. from
The loan to Panasian was guaranteed by a number of corporate defendants controlled by Peter
Plaintiff demanded payment of the finder's fee due under the brokerage agreement, but was
He then brought suit to recover the balance due under the agreement and to recover damages
Defendants answered and, inter alia, asserted a counterclaim alleging that pursuant to
Supreme Court, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against the estate
The Appellate Division affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion below, and granted
No person shall, directly or indirectly, take or receive more than fifty cents for a
Plaintiff argues that because Pako executed a mortgage to secure its obligations under its
Similarly unavailing is plaintiff's argument that section 5-531 does not apply to private
Section 5-531 makes no express distinction between individual and corporate borrowers, and
Nor is there evidence of an intent to limit the scope of section 5-531 to consumer
|
