H. L. Langer & Co. v. Friedland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

H. L. Langer & Co. v. Friedland

157 A.D.2d 589, 550 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 578

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 589 (H. L. Langer & Co. v. Friedland) 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

H. L. Langer & Co. v. Friedland, 157 A.D.2d 589, 550 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 6, 1988, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s fifth cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, the motion denied and the fifth cause of action reinstated, without costs.

In dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action, the IAS court characterized them as ones for fraud. While such description was correct as to the fourth cause of action, the dismissal of which is not contested on appeal, the fifth cause of action alleges that defendant Schnurmacher Brothers breached its agreement to deal solely and exclusively through plaintiff as a real estate broker in connection with the leasing and subsequent sale of the subject property to the other defendants. Since the record reveals issues of fact relating to this cause, summary judgment must be denied. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 6, 1988, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s fifth cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, the motion denied and the fifth cause of action reinstated, without costs.

In dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action, the IAS court characterized them as ones for fraud. While such description was correct as to the fourth cause of action, the dismissal of which is not contested on appeal, the fifth cause of action alleges that defendant Schnurmacher Brothers breached its agreement to deal solely and exclusively through plaintiff as a real estate broker in connection with the leasing and subsequent sale of the subject property to the other defendants. Since the record reveals issues of fact relating to this cause, summary judgment must be denied. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 589, 550 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-l-langer-co-v-friedland-nyappdiv-1990.