Kogan v. Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kogan v. Reilly

258 A.D. 913, 16 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7559

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 258 A.D. 913 (Kogan v. Reilly) 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

Kogan v. Reilly, 258 A.D. 913, 16 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs,real estate brokers, who sued for commissions for procuring a lease, appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint on the close of their case, at a trial before the court without a jury. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. In our opinion plaintiffs established a prima facie case under their complaint and bill of particulars. Their evidence showed that the parties themselves agreed upon the essential terms of the lease, but that the respective attorneys for the parties, when they came to prepare the lease later, fell into disagreement over certain terms on which the parties had agreed. This circumstance could not deprive the plaintiffs of their commission. (Tanenbaum v. Boehm, 202 N. Y. 293; Steele v. Chesebrough, 207 App. Div. 831.) The corporate lessee produced by plaintiffs, with which, according to the evidence, the lessors agreed upon the terms of the lease, intended for its own purposes to take the lease in the name of a wholly-owned subsidiary, which was merely a division or department of the lessee’s organization. This did not alter the status of the parent corporation as the real lessee. “ We may penetrate the disguise of form and see the substance beneath.” (York Mortgage Corp. v. Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 N. Y. 128, 138.) 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

Plaintiffs,real estate brokers, who sued for commissions for procuring a lease, appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint on the close of their case, at a trial before the court without a jury. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. In our opinion plaintiffs established a prima facie case under their complaint and bill of particulars. Their evidence showed that the parties themselves agreed upon the essential terms of the lease, but that the respective attorneys for the parties, when they came to prepare the lease later, fell into disagreement over certain terms on which the parties had agreed. This circumstance could not deprive the plaintiffs of their commission. (Tanenbaum v. Boehm, 202 N. Y. 293; Steele v. Chesebrough, 207 App. Div. 831.) The corporate lessee produced by plaintiffs, with which, according to the evidence, the lessors agreed upon the terms of the lease, intended for its own purposes to take the lease in the name of a wholly-owned subsidiary, which was merely a division or department of the lessee’s organization. This did not alter the status of the parent corporation as the real lessee. “ We may penetrate the disguise of form and see the substance beneath.” (York Mortgage Corp. v. Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 N. Y. 128, 138.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 913, 16 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kogan-v-reilly-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack