Action Properties, Inc. v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Action Properties, Inc. v. Cohen

203 A.D.2d 313, 612 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3757

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 313 (Action Properties, Inc. v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Action Properties, Inc. v. Cohen, 203 A.D.2d 313, 612 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover a broker’s commission, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), entered March 9, 1992, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal amount of $21,120, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the judgment on the ground of inadequacy.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The finding of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff broker was the procuring cause of the lease obtained by the defendant is supported by the evidence adduced at the trial and will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Kapoor v Jaggi, 191 AD2d 479; Kriesler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co. v Rosen & Morelli Masons, 181 AD2d 813; see also, Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197; Rennert Diana & Co. v Ziskind, 191 AD2d 545; Holiday Mgt. Assocs. v Albanese, 173 AD2d 775, 776).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover a broker’s commission, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), entered March 9, 1992, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal amount of $21,120, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the judgment on the ground of inadequacy.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The finding of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff broker was the procuring cause of the lease obtained by the defendant is supported by the evidence adduced at the trial and will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Kapoor v Jaggi, 191 AD2d 479; Kriesler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co. v Rosen & Morelli Masons, 181 AD2d 813; see also, Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197; Rennert Diana & Co. v Ziskind, 191 AD2d 545; Holiday Mgt. Assocs. v Albanese, 173 AD2d 775, 776).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 313, 612 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/action-properties-inc-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack