Brylgrove Ltd. v. Tomkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brylgrove Ltd. v. Tomkins

218 A.D.2d 575, 630 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8733

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

DecidedAugust 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 218 A.D.2d 575 (Brylgrove Ltd. v. Tomkins) 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

Brylgrove Ltd. v. Tomkins, 218 A.D.2d 575, 630 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New [576]*576York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 18, 1994, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered March 14, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is dismissed as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

The record contains incontrovertible evidence that it was not plaintiff who first brought the target company to defendant’s attention, and no evidence tending to show that plaintiff made the introductions that resulted in defendant’s acquisition of the target company, and, accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to a finder’s fee under either the contract it alleges or quantum meruit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New [576]*576York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 18, 1994, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered March 14, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is dismissed as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

The record contains incontrovertible evidence that it was not plaintiff who first brought the target company to defendant’s attention, and no evidence tending to show that plaintiff made the introductions that resulted in defendant’s acquisition of the target company, and, accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to a finder’s fee under either the contract it alleges or quantum meruit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 575, 630 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brylgrove-ltd-v-tomkins-nyappdiv-1995.