Kasofsky v. Monahan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kasofsky v. Monahan

128 Misc. 19, 217 N.Y.S. 188, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1071

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 Misc. 19 (Kasofsky v. Monahan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kasofsky v. Monahan, 128 Misc. 19, 217 N.Y.S. 188, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the sum of $197.50, with appropriate costs in the court below.

The uncontradicted proof is to the effect that the plaintiff was hired to sell property which was represented to be 20 feet in width by 100 feet in depth. The plaintiff produced a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to buy the property in question, which was stated by the defendant to be 20 feet in width by 100 feet in depth'. The failure to consummate the transaction was due to the misstatement of the description by the defendant. Under such circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to recover his commissions. (Davidson v. Stocky, 202 N. Y. 423; Sokolski v. Bleistift, 129 N. Y. Supp. 26.)

The case of Keough v. Meyer (127 App. Div. 273), cited by the respondent, is distinguishable, for the opinion recites that the plaintiff “ was to get a purchaser for the plot just as it was.

Present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the sum of $197.50, with appropriate costs in the court below.

The uncontradicted proof is to the effect that the plaintiff was hired to sell property which was represented to be 20 feet in width by 100 feet in depth. The plaintiff produced a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to buy the property in question, which was stated by the defendant to be 20 feet in width by 100 feet in depth'. The failure to consummate the transaction was due to the misstatement of the description by the defendant. Under such circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to recover his commissions. (Davidson v. Stocky, 202 N. Y. 423; Sokolski v. Bleistift, 129 N. Y. Supp. 26.)

The case of Keough v. Meyer (127 App. Div. 273), cited by the respondent, is distinguishable, for the opinion recites that the plaintiff “ was to get a purchaser for the plot just as it was.

Present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 Misc. 19, 217 N.Y.S. 188, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kasofsky-v-monahan-nyappterm-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack