Coufal v. Demertgsis

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Coufal v. Demertgsis

181 Misc. 370, 47 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1783

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 10, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 Misc. 370 (Coufal v. Demertgsis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coufal v. Demertgsis, 181 Misc. 370, 47 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sues for commissions alleged to have been earned in procuring a tenant who was given the exclusive right to use part of the wall surface of defendants’ building during a specified period, for the purpose of displaying advertisements thereon. The agreement between the advertiser so procured and the defendants created a real property right in the nature of an easement (Borough Bill Posting Co. v. Levy, 144 App. Div. 784; Rochester Poster Advertising Co., Inc., v. Smith[371]*371ers, 224 App. Div. 435, 436-437), and plaintiff having acted in the transaction as a real estate broker within the meaning of the term as defined in section 440 of the Real Property Law, is not entitled to recover commissions in view of the proof that he was not a duly licensed real estate broker at the time in question (Real Property Law, § 442-d).

Judgment unanimously reversed, upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to the defendants, and complaint dismissed with appropriate costs in the court below.

MacCrate, Smith and Steinbrink, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sues for commissions alleged to have been earned in procuring a tenant who was given the exclusive right to use part of the wall surface of defendants’ building during a specified period, for the purpose of displaying advertisements thereon. The agreement between the advertiser so procured and the defendants created a real property right in the nature of an easement (Borough Bill Posting Co. v. Levy, 144 App. Div. 784; Rochester Poster Advertising Co., Inc., v. Smith[371]*371ers, 224 App. Div. 435, 436-437), and plaintiff having acted in the transaction as a real estate broker within the meaning of the term as defined in section 440 of the Real Property Law, is not entitled to recover commissions in view of the proof that he was not a duly licensed real estate broker at the time in question (Real Property Law, § 442-d).

Judgment unanimously reversed, upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to the defendants, and complaint dismissed with appropriate costs in the court below.

MacCrate, Smith and Steinbrink, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Misc. 370, 47 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coufal-v-demertgsis-nyappterm-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack