Hohauser v. Reville Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hohauser v. Reville Realty Corp.

235 A.D. 795

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

DecidedApril 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 795 (Hohauser v. Reville Realty Corp.) 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

Hohauser v. Reville Realty Corp., 235 A.D. 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order setting aside verdict reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The dismissal of the complaint was error. Defendant’s Exhibit A is not a bar as a matter of law to the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. It may be construed as an admission by the plaintiff and so considered by a jury in determining whether or not the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to bring about the sale of the property in question or as some evidence to be considered in determining the question of fact as to whether or not the plaintiff released the defendant from its obligation to him for the commission heretofore earned. Appeal from order denying motion for reargument dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment and order setting aside verdict reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The dismissal of the complaint was error. Defendant’s Exhibit A is not a bar as a matter of law to the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. It may be construed as an admission by the plaintiff and so considered by a jury in determining whether or not the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to bring about the sale of the property in question or as some evidence to be considered in determining the question of fact as to whether or not the plaintiff released the defendant from its obligation to him for the commission heretofore earned. Appeal from order denying motion for reargument dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hohauser-v-reville-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1932.