Cutler v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cutler v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.

237 A.D.2d 193, 655 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 193 (Cutler v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.) 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

Cutler v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 237 A.D.2d 193, 655 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 10, 1996, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiff damages in an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, it being sufficient that she had shown the apartment to the individual defendant, who agreed to pay her a brokerage fee, and that shortly after she informed the individual defendant through his business agent that the apartment was available at the price he was willing to pay, he bought the apartment through the corporate defendant (see, Sholom & Zuckerbrot Realty Corp. v Citibank, 205 AD2d 336, 338-339). Further, defendants’ contention that the court improperly granted plaintiff’s motion to amend her pleadings to conform to the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Sanders & Assocs. v Friedman, 137 AD2d 677, 678). Finally, the imposition of joint and several liability was proper under the present circumstances. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 10, 1996, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiff damages in an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, it being sufficient that she had shown the apartment to the individual defendant, who agreed to pay her a brokerage fee, and that shortly after she informed the individual defendant through his business agent that the apartment was available at the price he was willing to pay, he bought the apartment through the corporate defendant (see, Sholom & Zuckerbrot Realty Corp. v Citibank, 205 AD2d 336, 338-339). Further, defendants’ contention that the court improperly granted plaintiff’s motion to amend her pleadings to conform to the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Sanders & Assocs. v Friedman, 137 AD2d 677, 678). Finally, the imposition of joint and several liability was proper under the present circumstances. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 193, 655 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutler-v-tommy-hilfiger-usa-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack