Ro-Stan Equities, Inc. v. Schechter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ro-Stan Equities, Inc. v. Schechter

44 A.D.2d 577, 353 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5542

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 577 (Ro-Stan Equities, Inc. v. Schechter) 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

Ro-Stan Equities, Inc. v. Schechter, 44 A.D.2d 577, 353 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered November 16, 1971, in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case at a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case. Proof sufficient to require rebuttal was introduced to show that plaintiff had produced a lender ready, willing and able to provide a mortgage at the termSytiet by defendant (see Lane—Real Estate Dept. Store v. Lawlet Corp., 28 N Y 2d 36, 42). Proof was also offered to the effect that defendant had waived /the provision in the brokerage agreement that the lender be an accredited lending institution. In this case defendant attached records to his brief which had not been received, or even offered, in evidence. We have heretofore called attention to the impropriety of such conduct (People v. Purdy, 37 A B 2d 734). Counsel do not help their clients by such improper conduct. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered November 16, 1971, in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case at a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case. Proof sufficient to require rebuttal was introduced to show that plaintiff had produced a lender ready, willing and able to provide a mortgage at the termSytiet by defendant (see Lane—Real Estate Dept. Store v. Lawlet Corp., 28 N Y 2d 36, 42). Proof was also offered to the effect that defendant had waived /the provision in the brokerage agreement that the lender be an accredited lending institution. In this case defendant attached records to his brief which had not been received, or even offered, in evidence. We have heretofore called attention to the impropriety of such conduct (People v. Purdy, 37 A B 2d 734). Counsel do not help their clients by such improper conduct. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 577, 353 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ro-stan-equities-inc-v-schechter-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack