From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mirisola v. Feldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 16, 1991
172 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 16, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, J.).


Plaintiff, a professional art dealer, commenced the underlying action against defendants Habsburg Feldman, S.A., a major international auction house located in Geneva, Switzerland, and New York, and Dr. Geza Von Habsburg, an officer and representative of Habsburg Feldman, S.A., seeking to recover a 5% commission in excess of $50,000 to which plaintiff alleges he was entitled by reason of his successful efforts to induce prospective sellers to consign objects of art to defendant Habsburg Feldman, S.A. for sale at auction.

Upon examination of the record, we find that the IAS Court, in dismissing the complaint, properly determined that a June 2, 1987 letter relied upon by the plaintiff for the alleged commissions, which was signed by defendant Geza Von Habsburg and addressed to a non-party, Robert Fitzgerald, was not ambiguous and did not satisfy General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (10), which requires a written agreement or memorandum in an action for a brokerage or finder's fee (Haskins v. Loeb Rhoades Co., 52 N.Y.2d 523).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Mirisola v. Feldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 16, 1991
172 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Mirisola v. Feldman

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH MIRISOLA, Appellant, v. HABSBURG FELDMAN, S.A., et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 16, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
568 N.Y.S.2d 110

Citing Cases

Sands v. Feldman

Assuming the truth of these allegations and giving them every favorable intendment ( 219 Broadway Corp. v.…