Karlinsky v. Silberman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karlinsky v. Silberman

259 A.D. 1016, 21 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782

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

DecidedJune 3, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D. 1016 (Karlinsky v. Silberman) 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

Karlinsky v. Silberman, 259 A.D. 1016, 21 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

This action was brought to recover for services alleged to have been performed by plaintiff between February 1, 1930, and January 15, 1937. He alleges that he duly managed, controlled, rented, leased and collected the rents of certain real estate in the borough of Brooklyn, for which services he seeks compensation. Plaintiff has recovered judgment, entered upon the verdict of a jury. From such judgment defendant appeals. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed upon the law, with costs. Coneededly, plaintiff is not a licensed real estate broker. Some of the services claimed to have been rendered by him are clearly within the purview of the provisions of article 12-A of the Real Property Law; and no recovery may be had for any of the services rendered. (American Store Equipment & Constr. Corp. v. Jack Dempsey’s Punch Bowl, Inc., N. Y. L. J. May 4, 1939, p. 2055; affd., without opinion, 258 App. Div. 794; affd. by the Court of Appeals, 283 N. Y. 601.) Conceding, arguendo, that article 12-A does not apply, the verdict is against the weight of evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

This action was brought to recover for services alleged to have been performed by plaintiff between February 1, 1930, and January 15, 1937. He alleges that he duly managed, controlled, rented, leased and collected the rents of certain real estate in the borough of Brooklyn, for which services he seeks compensation. Plaintiff has recovered judgment, entered upon the verdict of a jury. From such judgment defendant appeals. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed upon the law, with costs. Coneededly, plaintiff is not a licensed real estate broker. Some of the services claimed to have been rendered by him are clearly within the purview of the provisions of article 12-A of the Real Property Law; and no recovery may be had for any of the services rendered. (American Store Equipment & Constr. Corp. v. Jack Dempsey’s Punch Bowl, Inc., N. Y. L. J. May 4, 1939, p. 2055; affd., without opinion, 258 App. Div. 794; affd. by the Court of Appeals, 283 N. Y. 601.) Conceding, arguendo, that article 12-A does not apply, the verdict is against the weight of evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 1016, 21 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karlinsky-v-silberman-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack