Rothenberg v. Wander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rothenberg v. Wander

254 A.D. 800, 4 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7665

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

DecidedMay 13, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 800 (Rothenberg v. Wander) 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

Rothenberg v. Wander, 254 A.D. 800, 4 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on April 20,1937, upon a decision of an official referee dismissing the complaint upon the merits and granting defendants judgment against the plaintiff for $109 costs. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, while acting as her agents for the purpose of selling real estate, violated their trust and made a secret profit on the transaction. The official referee found that no agency existed and that the defendants were acting for the seller and not for the buyer and that they had not been employed by the plaintiff. The facts sustain this finding. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — • HE, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on April 20,1937, upon a decision of an official referee dismissing the complaint upon the merits and granting defendants judgment against the plaintiff for $109 costs. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, while acting as her agents for the purpose of selling real estate, violated their trust and made a secret profit on the transaction. The official referee found that no agency existed and that the defendants were acting for the seller and not for the buyer and that they had not been employed by the plaintiff. The facts sustain this finding. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — • HE, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 800, 4 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothenberg-v-wander-nyappdiv-1938.