Seligman v. Exquisite Form Industries, Inc.

33 A.D.2d 550, 304 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3011
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 23, 1969·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order entered February 28,1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion to dismiss is denied, with $50 costs and disbursements. The statutory requirement of a writing in the ease of contracts to pay compensation for the rendition of services as a finder in connection with the sale of a business opportunity (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 10) has been held not to apply to an attorney at law, as the statute so precisely declares; and this has been so concluded whether or not an attorney-client relationship existed between the parties. (Harris v. Sobel, 31 A D 2d 529, Rever v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 29 A D 2d 920.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGivern, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

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

Seligman v. Exquisite Form Industries, Inc., 33 A.D.2d 550, 304 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

33 A.D.2d 550 (Seligman v. Exquisite Form Industries, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lehman v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
606 F. Supp. 1152 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Hunter v. Greene
572 F. Supp. 49 (S.D. New York, 1983)
Bomser v. Moyle
89 A.D.2d 202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)