Friedman v. Marco

New York Court of Appeals

Friedman v. Marco

141 N.E.2d 914, 2 N.Y.2d 593, 161 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1957 N.Y. LEXIS 1090

DecidedApril 11, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 141 N.E.2d 914 (Friedman v. Marco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friedman v. Marco, 141 N.E.2d 914, 2 N.Y.2d 593, 161 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1957 N.Y. LEXIS 1090 (N.Y. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action based on an agreement allegedly entered into for the purpose of effecting a sale to defendant Samuel Marco of plaintiff’s interest, including good will, in a partnership insurance business, the issue presented is whether the agreement violated the Insurance Law with regard to sharing agents’ commissions, as claimed by defendants, or whether it was a valid agreement, as claimed by plaintiff. On the imperfect instruments drawn by the parties themselves, and in the light of this record, we cannot say that the agreement sued on is illegal as a matter of law and may in no respect be enforced. Questions of fact are present, and whatever the final judgment may be, plaintiff is entitled to a trial thereof (Stulsaft v. Mercer Tube & Mfg. Co., 288 N. Y. 255, 260; Peoples Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Westchester, 261 N. Y. 342, 346-347).

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the order of Special Term reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Conway, Ch. J., Desmond, Dye, Fxtld, Froessed, Yan Yoorhis and Burke, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action based on an agreement allegedly entered into for the purpose of effecting a sale to defendant Samuel Marco of plaintiff’s interest, including good will, in a partnership insurance business, the issue presented is whether the agreement violated the Insurance Law with regard to sharing agents’ commissions, as claimed by defendants, or whether it was a valid agreement, as claimed by plaintiff. On the imperfect instruments drawn by the parties themselves, and in the light of this record, we cannot say that the agreement sued on is illegal as a matter of law and may in no respect be enforced. Questions of fact are present, and whatever the final judgment may be, plaintiff is entitled to a trial thereof (Stulsaft v. Mercer Tube & Mfg. Co., 288 N. Y. 255, 260; Peoples Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Westchester, 261 N. Y. 342, 346-347).

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the order of Special Term reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Conway, Ch. J., Desmond, Dye, Fxtld, Froessed, Yan Yoorhis and Burke, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 N.E.2d 914, 2 N.Y.2d 593, 161 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1957 N.Y. LEXIS 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-marco-ny-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack