Kassiel Homnick & Drucker & Gussoff Realty Corp. v. New York Dock Trade Facilities Corp.

246 A.D. 844
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 246 A.D. 844 (Kassiel Homnick & Drucker & Gussoff Realty Corp. v. New York Dock Trade Facilities 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
Kassiel Homnick & Drucker & Gussoff Realty Corp. v. New York Dock Trade Facilities Corp., 246 A.D. 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

Action to recover broker’s commissions on the sale of real estate. Judgment dismissing the complaint against the individual defendant unanimously affirmed, with costs. As against the corporate defendant the judgment is reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The evidence presented questions of fact for the jury inter alia, (1) whether or not the corporate defendant had “ accepted ” the plaintiffs’ proposed purchaser. If the jury so found, then there was no need for proof of financial ability of the proposed purchaser, who in fact eventually bought the property; (2) whether or not the plaintiffs or the other brokers were the procuring cause of the sale; (3) as to the bona fides of the closing of the transaction through the second set of brokers, affected in part by whether or not the plaintiffs’ version be accepted that they brought the proposed purchasers and the corporate defendant together under circumstances which resulted in an agreement on all the important details of the transaction and that there was an express understanding that the owner was to negotiate and close the details thereof, and in which event the defendant expressly agreed to pay the brokerage to plaintiffs. The court erroneously excluded testimony proffered by the plaintiffs in respect of the services rendered in bringing about a sale of the property to Rabinowitz Brothers. A typical example of such erroneous rulings appears at folio 55. Hagarty, Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Related

J. Grotto & Associates Inc. v. Lax
174 A.D.2d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Door Knob Realty, Inc. v. Northrop
86 Misc. 675 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
Tulp v. Padula
70 Misc. 2d 306 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1972)
Hugh W. Murphy, Inc. v. Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
253 A.D. 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
Brunswick v. Triboro Properties, Inc.
248 A.D. 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D. 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kassiel-homnick-drucker-gussoff-realty-corp-v-new-york-dock-trade-nyappdiv-1936.