Eletz v. Goodelman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Eletz v. Goodelman

159 N.Y.S. 161

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 26, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.Y.S. 161 (Eletz v. Goodelman) 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

Eletz v. Goodelman, 159 N.Y.S. 161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

COHALAN, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover upon oral pleadings the sum of $200 as a broker’s commission. The answer was a general denial. Upon the trial the following written memorandum was put in evidence by the plaintiff:

“I, the undersigned, hereby agree, in consideration of one dollar to me paid in hand, to pay Mr. S. Eletz two hundred dollars commission ($110 in cash and three monthly notes at $30 each), provided my store is sold to Mr. Green-berg. [Signed] I. M. Goodelman.”

[162]*162It clearly obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $200, provided the store was sold to Mr. Greenberg. The plaintiff was a broker of drug stores, and the defendant employed him to find a purchaser for his store, and through his agent negotiations were entered into with Mr. Greenberg, and the latter subsequently, and in a reasonable time, purchased the store. The defense that another broker intervened and sold the drug store at a commission of $50 should not avail the defendant, on the facts adduced on the trial and the memorandum in evidence.

The judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $200, with interest and costs. All concur.

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

COHALAN, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover upon oral pleadings the sum of $200 as a broker’s commission. The answer was a general denial. Upon the trial the following written memorandum was put in evidence by the plaintiff:

“I, the undersigned, hereby agree, in consideration of one dollar to me paid in hand, to pay Mr. S. Eletz two hundred dollars commission ($110 in cash and three monthly notes at $30 each), provided my store is sold to Mr. Green-berg. [Signed] I. M. Goodelman.”

[162]*162It clearly obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $200, provided the store was sold to Mr. Greenberg. The plaintiff was a broker of drug stores, and the defendant employed him to find a purchaser for his store, and through his agent negotiations were entered into with Mr. Greenberg, and the latter subsequently, and in a reasonable time, purchased the store. The defense that another broker intervened and sold the drug store at a commission of $50 should not avail the defendant, on the facts adduced on the trial and the memorandum in evidence.

The judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $200, with interest and costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.Y.S. 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eletz-v-goodelman-nyappterm-1916.