Wollenberg v. Pearl-Willoughby Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wollenberg v. Pearl-Willoughby Corp.

235 A.D. 876

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

DecidedMay 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 876 (Wollenberg v. Pearl-Willoughby 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

Wollenberg v. Pearl-Willoughby Corp., 235 A.D. 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. No issue of fact remains to be tried. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record, plaintiffs’ right to recover for each year involved a separate and distinct claim. The judgment in the prior action established, first, that the plaintiffs were duly licensed real estate brokers; second, that the defendant is the owner of the premises leased; third, that the lease was made; and, fourth, that plaintiffs were the procuring cause. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover for the second year at the rate shown. The Statute of Frauds is no defense. Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Kapper, J., dissent upon the ground that plaintiffs had but one cause of action, namely, a cause of action for the value of their services in procuring the lease in question.

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

Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. No issue of fact remains to be tried. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record, plaintiffs’ right to recover for each year involved a separate and distinct claim. The judgment in the prior action established, first, that the plaintiffs were duly licensed real estate brokers; second, that the defendant is the owner of the premises leased; third, that the lease was made; and, fourth, that plaintiffs were the procuring cause. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover for the second year at the rate shown. The Statute of Frauds is no defense. Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Kapper, J., dissent upon the ground that plaintiffs had but one cause of action, namely, a cause of action for the value of their services in procuring the lease in question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wollenberg-v-pearl-willoughby-corp-nyappdiv-1932.