Spitzer v. 1313 Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spitzer v. 1313 Corp.

3 A.D.2d 901, 162 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5367

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

DecidedMay 21, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 901 (Spitzer v. 1313 Corp.) 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

Spitzer v. 1313 Corp., 3 A.D.2d 901, 162 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

There was no consideration for the separate agreement under which plaintiff asserts that if he divulged the name of his prospect to defendant, he was to be paid full commissions if a deal were made with his customers. The negotiations for the contemplated lease could not have progressed very far without disclosure of the identity of the proposed lessee, so that its responsibility and needs could be considered by the landlord (Ostroff v. Doctor, 238 N. Y. 264). However, in connection with the underlying employment of plaintiff by defendants, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that he was the procuring cause of the negotiation of the lease to withstand the motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s case. Likewise, the issues as to whether plaintiff’s employ[902]*902ment was terminated or whether he abandoned the deal, as contended by defendant, should also have been developed further and then submitted to the jury. Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and a new trial ordered. Concur — Peck, P. J., Botein, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

There was no consideration for the separate agreement under which plaintiff asserts that if he divulged the name of his prospect to defendant, he was to be paid full commissions if a deal were made with his customers. The negotiations for the contemplated lease could not have progressed very far without disclosure of the identity of the proposed lessee, so that its responsibility and needs could be considered by the landlord (Ostroff v. Doctor, 238 N. Y. 264). However, in connection with the underlying employment of plaintiff by defendants, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that he was the procuring cause of the negotiation of the lease to withstand the motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s case. Likewise, the issues as to whether plaintiff’s employ[902]*902ment was terminated or whether he abandoned the deal, as contended by defendant, should also have been developed further and then submitted to the jury. Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and a new trial ordered. Concur — Peck, P. J., Botein, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 901, 162 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spitzer-v-1313-corp-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack