Woods v. Nadel

E.D. New York

Woods v. Nadel

90 F. Supp. 962, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3903

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided May 31, 1950·No. Civ. A. No. 9607·Published

Opinion

BYERS, District Judge.

The Court is satisfied that the brokerage paid by the sub-lessee did not inure to the benefit of the defendants in this case, and therefore that the rent paid by the sub-lessee was not enhanced so as to violate the statute; the sub-lessee agreed to pay the brokerage, with knowledge that the tenant in possession, who desired to dispose of her lease, was unwilling to pay a commission to the real estate broker who handled the transaction for her, and this fact was known to the sub-lessee when he entered into negotiations with the tenant of the apartment through the broker who advertised the premises for rental.

Judgment for defendants.

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

BYERS, District Judge.

The Court is satisfied that the brokerage paid by the sub-lessee did not inure to the benefit of the defendants in this case, and therefore that the rent paid by the sub-lessee was not enhanced so as to violate the statute; the sub-lessee agreed to pay the brokerage, with knowledge that the tenant in possession, who desired to dispose of her lease, was unwilling to pay a commission to the real estate broker who handled the transaction for her, and this fact was known to the sub-lessee when he entered into negotiations with the tenant of the apartment through the broker who advertised the premises for rental.

Judgment for defendants.

Woods v. Nadel, 90 F. Supp. 962, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3903 (E.D.N.Y. 1950).

Pincite

90 F. Supp. 962 (Woods v. Nadel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.