From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Broser v. Royal Abstract Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 17, 1966
49 Misc. 2d 882 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)

Opinion

March 17, 1966

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, PATRICK J. PICARIELLO, J.

Hyman B. Schutzer for appellant.

Harry Orner and Zarah Williamson for respondent.

Morris Permut and Michael Permut for New York State Title Association, amicus curiae.


The judgment must be modified since the certificate of title liability contains a valid exculpatory clause, sufficient to insulate the defendant abstract company from liability in excess of $1,000, regardless of whether the action sounds in tort or contract.

Further, dismissal of the counterclaim was improper, since plaintiff's law firm stands personally liable for contracts executed as agent for undisclosed principals ( Goodman Prods. Corp. v. A. Lustig, Inc., 265 App. Div. 506).

The judgment should be modified by decreasing the recovery thereof to the sum of $1,000 with interest and judgment directed for the defendant on its counterclaim in the sum of $253.50 with interest, and, as modified, affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant.

HOFSTADTER, J.P., HECHT and GOLD, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, etc.


Summaries of

Broser v. Royal Abstract Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 17, 1966
49 Misc. 2d 882 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
Case details for

Broser v. Royal Abstract Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ALVIN H. BROSER, Respondent, v. ROYAL ABSTRACT CORP., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 17, 1966

Citations

49 Misc. 2d 882 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
268 N.Y.S.2d 594

Citing Cases

Humm v. Lombard World Trade, Inc.

We find that the decision in Layne is distinguishable based on several factors. First, addressing Layne's…