Gluckman v. Froehlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gluckman v. Froehlich

283 A.D. 795, 128 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 795 (Gluckman v. Froehlich) 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

Gluckman v. Froehlich, 283 A.D. 795, 128 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

• — Action to recover brokerage commissions under a contract which provided that such commissions were deemed earned upon the closing of title to real property. The sellers, respondents on this appeal, tendered title which the representative of the title company, which company had been retained by the purchasers, approved and was ready to insure. But title did not pass; and the purchasers and respondents cancelled the contract upon the refunding by respondents of part of the deposit made on the signing of the contract, which refund might have been retained in full as liquidated damages. The appellant, as an attorney at law, represented the purchasers at the time of the settlement. Thereafter, appellant claimed brokerage commissions and respondents offered to permit the purchasers to perform notwithstanding the prior settlement and cancellation of the contract. Order granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment and judgment entered thereon affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Adel, Wenzel, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, to vacate the judgment, and to deny respondents’ motion for summary judgment, on the ground that the record presents questions of fact, which may not be determined on affidavits. (Cf. Amies v. Wesnofske, 255 N. Y. 156, and Hirschfeld v. Jamaica Sav. Bank, 257 App. Div. 991.) [See post, p. 814.]

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

• — Action to recover brokerage commissions under a contract which provided that such commissions were deemed earned upon the closing of title to real property. The sellers, respondents on this appeal, tendered title which the representative of the title company, which company had been retained by the purchasers, approved and was ready to insure. But title did not pass; and the purchasers and respondents cancelled the contract upon the refunding by respondents of part of the deposit made on the signing of the contract, which refund might have been retained in full as liquidated damages. The appellant, as an attorney at law, represented the purchasers at the time of the settlement. Thereafter, appellant claimed brokerage commissions and respondents offered to permit the purchasers to perform notwithstanding the prior settlement and cancellation of the contract. Order granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment and judgment entered thereon affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Adel, Wenzel, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, to vacate the judgment, and to deny respondents’ motion for summary judgment, on the ground that the record presents questions of fact, which may not be determined on affidavits. (Cf. Amies v. Wesnofske, 255 N. Y. 156, and Hirschfeld v. Jamaica Sav. Bank, 257 App. Div. 991.) [See post, p. 814.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 795, 128 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gluckman-v-froehlich-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack