Busch v. Licht

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Busch v. Licht

255 A.D. 983, 8 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6154

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 983 (Busch v. Licht) 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

Busch v. Licht, 255 A.D. 983, 8 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by brokers to recover commission for procuring a tenant for defendant’s property. Defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiffs’ case was granted on the ground that there was no proof of employment of plaintiffs by defendant. Judgment of the County Court of Nassau county for defendant reversed on the law and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. There was sufficient proof prima fade from which employment might be inferred. The claimed defect in proof respecting plaintiffs’ license to act as brokers may be made the subject of further proof. In any event, the dismissal was not on the latter ground. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Action by brokers to recover commission for procuring a tenant for defendant’s property. Defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiffs’ case was granted on the ground that there was no proof of employment of plaintiffs by defendant. Judgment of the County Court of Nassau county for defendant reversed on the law and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. There was sufficient proof prima fade from which employment might be inferred. The claimed defect in proof respecting plaintiffs’ license to act as brokers may be made the subject of further proof. In any event, the dismissal was not on the latter ground. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 983, 8 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busch-v-licht-nyappdiv-1938.