Rothbard v. Jones

236 A.D. 738
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 15, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D. 738 (Rothbard v. Jones) 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
Rothbard v. Jones, 236 A.D. 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

On agreed statement of facts, judgment unanimously directed for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,133.33, without costs. When this agreement was made the plaintiff was still a lawyer and, therefore, the agreement which he made with the defendants did not violate section 274, subdivision 2, of the Penal Law in so far as it concerned compensation for services theretofore rendered by the plaintiff in this action. Even if plaintiff were a layman at the time the agreement was entered into, it would still be enforcible against the defendants. (Irwin v. Curie, 171 N. Y. 409, 414; Matter of Kelsey, 186 App. Div. 95, 97.) We place the decision, however, on the first ground. The situation in Dudar v. Milef Realty Corp. (227 App. Div. 279) differs radically from that involved herein. In any event, in so far as that decision is contrary to the holding herein, we do not follow it. Present ■—■ Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ.

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

Related

In re Kanfer & Kanter
33 Misc. 2d 292 (New York District Court, 1962)
Mendelson v. Gogolick
243 A.D. 115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 A.D. 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothbard-v-jones-nyappdiv-1932.