Shalov v. Rosovsky

136 Misc. 132, 239 N.Y.S. 54, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1059
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 21, 1929·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Order unanimously reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs to appellant, and motion denied, with ten dollars [133] costs. While the defendant’s explanation of his default could well have been deemed sufficient, the papers submitted by him upon the motion to set aside the inquest do not show that he has any defense to the action. He admits making the check upon which the plaintiff sues and says it was given as commission for the sale of a drug store business. The only defense asserted in the motion papers is that the plaintiff was not a licensed broker. That is not a defense. A broker need not be licensed under the provisions of the Real Property Law (Art. 12-A) to bring about a sale of a business. (Weingast v. Rialto Pastry Shop, 243 N. Y. 113.)

All concur; present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

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

Shalov v. Rosovsky, 136 Misc. 132, 239 N.Y.S. 54, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

136 Misc. 132 (Shalov v. Rosovsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Flammia v. Mite Corporation
401 F. Supp. 1121 (E.D. New York, 1975)
Dodge v. Richmond
5 A.D.2d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Schultz v. Palmer Welloct Tool Corp.
207 F.2d 652 (Third Circuit, 1953)
Schultz v. Palmer Welloct Tool Corp.
115 F. Supp. 939 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1953)