Leibow v. Louis Friedman & Pearleweff Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leibow v. Louis Friedman & Pearleweff Realty Corp.

253 A.D. 742, 300 N.Y.S. 939, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 742 (Leibow v. Louis Friedman & Pearleweff 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

Leibow v. Louis Friedman & Pearleweff Realty Corp., 253 A.D. 742, 300 N.Y.S. 939, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a verbal construction contract and for the reasonable value of services rendered with respect to suggested modifications of plans, judgment of the County Court of Nassau county, dismissing complaint pursuant to the granting of a motion at the close at the plaintiff’s case, reversed on the law and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. In our opinion, plaintiff’s showing made out a prima fade ease from which the jury could find that a verbal construction contract was entered into and that the parties contemplated confirmation thereof by fonpal execution of a written contract. In the alternative, the jury could have found that the plaintiff was to be reasonably compensated for his services with respect to modification of the plans. Hagarty, Davis, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a verbal construction contract and for the reasonable value of services rendered with respect to suggested modifications of plans, judgment of the County Court of Nassau county, dismissing complaint pursuant to the granting of a motion at the close at the plaintiff’s case, reversed on the law and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. In our opinion, plaintiff’s showing made out a prima fade ease from which the jury could find that a verbal construction contract was entered into and that the parties contemplated confirmation thereof by fonpal execution of a written contract. In the alternative, the jury could have found that the plaintiff was to be reasonably compensated for his services with respect to modification of the plans. Hagarty, Davis, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 742, 300 N.Y.S. 939, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leibow-v-louis-friedman-pearleweff-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1937.