Schorr v. Errico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schorr v. Errico

1 A.D.2d 971, 150 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5773

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

DecidedApril 16, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 971 (Schorr v. Errico) 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

Schorr v. Errico, 1 A.D.2d 971, 150 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a broker’s commission of $700 from the owners of a parcel of real property, the owners counterclaim to recover $700, the difference between the amount alleged to have been collected by the broker from the purchaser and the amount paid by the broker to the owners. The appeal is from an order granting the broker’s motion for summary judgment and denying the owners’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim, and from the judgment entered on said order. Order modified by striking therefrom the first ordering paragraph and by substituting therefor a provision that plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions for summary judgment be denied, and by striking from said order the second ordering paragraph. As so modified, order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. Judgment vacated, without costs. Under the circumstances herein, questions of fact are presented which should be resolved by a trial. (Suslenslcy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Misc. 624, affd. 267 App. Div. 812.) Present—Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.; Wenzel, J., not voting.

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

In an action to recover a broker’s commission of $700 from the owners of a parcel of real property, the owners counterclaim to recover $700, the difference between the amount alleged to have been collected by the broker from the purchaser and the amount paid by the broker to the owners. The appeal is from an order granting the broker’s motion for summary judgment and denying the owners’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim, and from the judgment entered on said order. Order modified by striking therefrom the first ordering paragraph and by substituting therefor a provision that plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions for summary judgment be denied, and by striking from said order the second ordering paragraph. As so modified, order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. Judgment vacated, without costs. Under the circumstances herein, questions of fact are presented which should be resolved by a trial. (Suslenslcy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Misc. 624, affd. 267 App. Div. 812.) Present—Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.; Wenzel, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 971, 150 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schorr-v-errico-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack