Schusterman v. Kraus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schusterman v. Kraus

148 A.D. 727, 132 N.Y.S. 758, 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5977

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 5, 1912·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Jenks, P. J.:

This is an action for the recovery of broker’s commissions upon the sale of realty. The defendant sought to prove that prior to the communication of the plaintiff to her that plaintiff had found a purchaser, the defendant ¡ had affirmed a sale made through another broker. But she was prevented by various general .objections which were sustained by the court under exceptions.

It did not appear that the employment ;of the plaintiff was exclusive. Therefore, evidence that tended] to show that before the plaintiff produced her customer the defendant in good faith had accepted a purchaser produced by another broker, was relevant to the issue of the defendant’s liability. (Ettinghoff v. Horowitz, 115 App. Div. 571.)

The judgment of the Municipal Court must be reversed and a new trial must be ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Bjrsghberg, Thomas, Carr 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

Jenks, P. J.:

This is an action for the recovery of broker’s commissions upon the sale of realty. The defendant sought to prove that prior to the communication of the plaintiff to her that plaintiff had found a purchaser, the defendant ¡ had affirmed a sale made through another broker. But she was prevented by various general .objections which were sustained by the court under exceptions.

It did not appear that the employment ;of the plaintiff was exclusive. Therefore, evidence that tended] to show that before the plaintiff produced her customer the defendant in good faith had accepted a purchaser produced by another broker, was relevant to the issue of the defendant’s liability. (Ettinghoff v. Horowitz, 115 App. Div. 571.)

The judgment of the Municipal Court must be reversed and a new trial must be ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Bjrsghberg, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred.

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

Schusterman v. Kraus, 148 A.D. 727, 132 N.Y.S. 758, 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

148 A.D. 727 (Schusterman v. Kraus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related