Lieberman v. Farber

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieberman v. Farber

133 Misc. 833, 234 N.Y.S. 81, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 743

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 20, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 Misc. 833 (Lieberman v. Farber) 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

Lieberman v. Farber, 133 Misc. 833, 234 N.Y.S. 81, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, a broker, was employed by defendant to sell his store conducted on leased premises. Plaintiff failed to find a purchaser at the price stipulated, but after negotiations defendant and the proposed purchaser agreed on a different price. Thereupon a contract was entered into between the purchaser and defendant the effectiveness of which was made dependent upon the consent of the landlord to the assignment of the lease. In this contract drawn by plaintiff there was a provision that plaintiff was the broker and the seller agreed to pay him his commission. In our opinion the agreement to pay the commission and the agreement to sell the store were both dependent upon the consent of the landlord, which concededly was never given. Part of plaintiff’s testimony serves to confirm this interpretation.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijub, Levy and Ceain, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, a broker, was employed by defendant to sell his store conducted on leased premises. Plaintiff failed to find a purchaser at the price stipulated, but after negotiations defendant and the proposed purchaser agreed on a different price. Thereupon a contract was entered into between the purchaser and defendant the effectiveness of which was made dependent upon the consent of the landlord to the assignment of the lease. In this contract drawn by plaintiff there was a provision that plaintiff was the broker and the seller agreed to pay him his commission. In our opinion the agreement to pay the commission and the agreement to sell the store were both dependent upon the consent of the landlord, which concededly was never given. Part of plaintiff’s testimony serves to confirm this interpretation.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijub, Levy and Ceain, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 Misc. 833, 234 N.Y.S. 81, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieberman-v-farber-nyappterm-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack