Giofrida v. Scagliola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giofrida v. Scagliola

257 A.D. 919, 12 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8397

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

DecidedMay 17, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 919 (Giofrida v. Scagliola) 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

Giofrida v. Scagliola, 257 A.D. 919, 12 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The complaint alleges performance by plaintiff of a contract to procure for defendants a contract to build a house. The record shows that plaintiff introduced defendants to Lipsky and exerted considerable effort to induce Lipsky to enter into a building contract with defendants. Such contract was ultimately entered into, but only after defendants had become the successful competitive bidder. But there is evidence given without objection that defendants agreed that even though their success in securing the contract with Lipsky depended on successful competitive bidding they would pay plaintiff a $250 commission; and there is evidence that, after defendants secured the Lipsky contract, they acknowledged their indebtedness to plaintiff in the sum of $250 and paid fifty dollars thereon. This is the second time plaintiff has secured a verdict. We cannot say that the weight of the evidence calls for a reversal. All concur. (The judgment affirms a judgment of Rochester City Court, Civil Branch, in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover real estate commissions.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The complaint alleges performance by plaintiff of a contract to procure for defendants a contract to build a house. The record shows that plaintiff introduced defendants to Lipsky and exerted considerable effort to induce Lipsky to enter into a building contract with defendants. Such contract was ultimately entered into, but only after defendants had become the successful competitive bidder. But there is evidence given without objection that defendants agreed that even though their success in securing the contract with Lipsky depended on successful competitive bidding they would pay plaintiff a $250 commission; and there is evidence that, after defendants secured the Lipsky contract, they acknowledged their indebtedness to plaintiff in the sum of $250 and paid fifty dollars thereon. This is the second time plaintiff has secured a verdict. We cannot say that the weight of the evidence calls for a reversal. All concur. (The judgment affirms a judgment of Rochester City Court, Civil Branch, in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover real estate commissions.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 919, 12 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giofrida-v-scagliola-nyappdiv-1939.