Rosenstein v. Bogel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenstein v. Bogel

124 A.D. 527, 108 N.Y.S. 957, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2135

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 1908·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Hookee, J.:

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered at the close of his evidence dismissing the complaint. The action was for commissions. The proof offered tended to. show the employment of plaintiff to furnish a purchaser fur defendant’s premises; that the plaintiff procured a purchaser in the person of one Kleng, who was introduced to the defendant as a prospective purchaser of the premises for $36,000, $8,000 cash and the balance to be secured by a mortgage upon the property; that afterwards the defendant changed the terms of the sale and insisted on a larger cash payment equal to $10,000 ; that the proposed purchaser, Kleng, refused to make the cash payment of $10,000 and abandoned negotiations with the defendant; that the said proposed purchaser, Kleng, had funds witli which to make the $8,000 payment; that afterwards the plaintiff procured another purchaser in the person of one Siegel, who was ready and willing to take the property on defendant’s terms of [528] $36,000 with a cash payment of $10,000. The rate of commission: was to be one per cent.

These facts established a canse of action, and plaintiff was entitled to recover at the close of his case as the evidence then stood. The. trial justice erred in- dismissing the complaint,-and for this error the judgment of the Municipal Court must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Woodward, Jerks, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. '

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

Hookee, J.:

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered at the close of his evidence dismissing the complaint. The action was for commissions. The proof offered tended to. show the employment of plaintiff to furnish a purchaser fur defendant’s premises; that the plaintiff procured a purchaser in the person of one Kleng, who was introduced to the defendant as a prospective purchaser of the premises for $36,000, $8,000 cash and the balance to be secured by a mortgage upon the property; that afterwards the defendant changed the terms of the sale and insisted on a larger cash payment equal to $10,000 ; that the proposed purchaser, Kleng, refused to make the cash payment of $10,000 and abandoned negotiations with the defendant; that the said proposed purchaser, Kleng, had funds witli which to make the $8,000 payment; that afterwards the plaintiff procured another purchaser in the person of one Siegel, who was ready and willing to take the property on defendant’s terms of [528] $36,000 with a cash payment of $10,000. The rate of commission: was to be one per cent.

These facts established a canse of action, and plaintiff was entitled to recover at the close of his case as the evidence then stood. The. trial justice erred in- dismissing the complaint,-and for this error the judgment of the Municipal Court must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Woodward, Jerks, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. '

Rosenstein v. Bogel, 124 A.D. 527, 108 N.Y.S. 957, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

124 A.D. 527 (Rosenstein v. Bogel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related