Groetzinger v. Forest Hills Terrace Corporation

3 Citing cases

  1. Whiddett v. Mack

    50 Nev. 289 (Nev. 1927)   Cited 5 times

    In Firpo v. Murphy, 72 Cal.App. 249, 236 P. 968, it was held that the statute was one designated for the protection of the public and that a contract made in violation of its provisions was void. In Groetzinger v. Forest Hills Terrace Corporation, 123 Misc Rep. 274, 205 N.Y.S. 125, it was held that the business of real estate broker or salesman was a proper subject for legislative regulation, and that a complaint which failed to state that the plaintiff was licensed as a real estate broker or salesman did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and deprived him of the legal capacity to sue. As stated by Mr. Clark in his work on Contracts (3d ed.), p. 325:

  2. People ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman

    213 A.D. 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)   Cited 2 times

    None of these statutes has been attacked as compelling self-incrimination, although the validity of the last-mentioned act has been challenged as an unlawful exercise of the police power, and its validity sustained at the Special Term. ( Groetzinger v. Forest Hills Terrace Corp., 123 Misc. 274.)

  3. ROMAN v. LOBE

    213 A.D. 162 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)

    Other occupations, the regulation of which has been held to be in accord with the fundamental law, are the plumbing trade ( People ex rel. Nechamcus v. Warden, 144 N.Y. 529); the reselling of tickets of admission to theatres and other places of public amusement ( People v. Weller, 237 id. 316). In Groetzinger v. Forest Hills Terrace Corporation ( 123 Misc. 274), where the constitutionality of the statute in question was under review, the court said: "Defendant claims that the statutory provisions referred to violate the fundamental law. Careful study, however, has led me to the conclusion that they are constitutional.