Paretta v. Yuhas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paretta v. Yuhas

273 A.D. 977, 78 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5566

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

DecidedApril 19, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 977 (Paretta v. Yuhas) 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

Paretta v. Yuhas, 273 A.D. 977, 78 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a licensed real estate broker against the corporate purchaser of property, and the individual stockholders thereof, to recover brokerage commissions on the ground that defendants promised to pay them and thereafter conspired to deprive plaintiff thereof, there was a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 (a copy of a letter written by plaintiff to one of the defendants stating that the owner was interested in selling the property as per defendants’ offer) was erroneously admitted in evidence. Steber v. Palm Knitting Go., Ino., 206 App. Div. 439; McNally V. 301 Madison Avenue Corp., 213 App. Div. 616.) Without that letter, there is no proof of acceptance by the owner of defendants’ offer to purchase. Moreover, the admission in evidence of the pages of plaintiff’s diary was error. The entries therein were merely private memoranda of matters to be done and not records of an act, transaction, occurrence or event made in the regular course of business. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. concur.

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

In an action by a licensed real estate broker against the corporate purchaser of property, and the individual stockholders thereof, to recover brokerage commissions on the ground that defendants promised to pay them and thereafter conspired to deprive plaintiff thereof, there was a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 (a copy of a letter written by plaintiff to one of the defendants stating that the owner was interested in selling the property as per defendants’ offer) was erroneously admitted in evidence. Steber v. Palm Knitting Go., Ino., 206 App. Div. 439; McNally V. 301 Madison Avenue Corp., 213 App. Div. 616.) Without that letter, there is no proof of acceptance by the owner of defendants’ offer to purchase. Moreover, the admission in evidence of the pages of plaintiff’s diary was error. The entries therein were merely private memoranda of matters to be done and not records of an act, transaction, occurrence or event made in the regular course of business. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 977, 78 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paretta-v-yuhas-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack