From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brunjes v. Maiden

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 4, 1934
153 Misc. 645 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)

Opinion

October 4, 1934.

Max Wolofsky [ Maxwell Okun of counsel], for the appellant.

Charles M. Hall, for the respondent.


Judgment and order unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to appellant, and motion for summary judgment denied.

Plaintiff's papers do not comply with the provisions of rule 113. Furthermore, defendant's papers show that he made no agreement with the plaintiff and that Martin, whom defendant had authorized to procure the loan, was merely a real estate broker. As such, Martin had no authority to employ the plaintiff ( Southack v. Ireland, 109 A.D. 45; Carroll v. Tucker, 2 Misc. 397) and the latter has no claim against the defendant. No opinion.

All concur; present, CROPSEY, LEWIS and JOHNSTON, JJ.


Summaries of

Brunjes v. Maiden

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 4, 1934
153 Misc. 645 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
Case details for

Brunjes v. Maiden

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. BRUNJES, Respondent, v. J. EDGAR MAIDEN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Oct 4, 1934

Citations

153 Misc. 645 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
275 N.Y.S. 112