Broser v. Royal Abstract Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Broser v. Royal Abstract Corp.

49 Misc. 2d 882, 268 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2090

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 Misc. 2d 882 (Broser v. Royal Abstract Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broser v. Royal Abstract Corp., 49 Misc. 2d 882, 268 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2090 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment must be modified since the certificate of title liability contains a valid exculpatory clause, sufficient to insulate the defendant abstract company from liability in excess of $1,000, regardless of whether the action sounds in tort or contract.

Further, dismissal of the counterclaim was improper, since plaintiff’s law firm stands personally liable for contracts executed as agent for undisclosed principals (Goodman Prods. Corp. v. A. Lustig, Inc., 265 App. Div. 506).

The judgment should be modified by decreasing the recovery thereof to the sum of $1,000 with interest and judgment directed for the defendant on its counterclaim in the sum of $253.50 with interest, and, as modified, affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant.

Hofstadter, J. P., Hecht and Gold, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, etc.

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