From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poritz v. Sunshine

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Apr 9, 1925
125 Misc. 837 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)

Opinion

April 9, 1925.

Joseph Gans, for the appellant.

Robert S. Dubois, for the respondent.


Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant, for the determination of the amount of commission only.

It is undisputed that defendant authorized the plaintiff to find a customer for his store and that defendant knew that plaintiff would ask for a commission, although defendant claims there was no talk about a commission. That plaintiff induced Grill to consider the purchase of the store is undisputed. The fact that plaintiff did not participate in the negotiations makes no difference; nor is the right to commission affected by the fact that the defendant, as he claims, did not know that plaintiff sent Grill to him. ( Metcalfe v. Gordon, 86 A.D. 368, and cases cited.) There is, therefore, no controverted question of fact except the amount of commission.

Present: CROPSEY, LAZANSKY and MacCRATE, JJ.


Summaries of

Poritz v. Sunshine

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Apr 9, 1925
125 Misc. 837 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)
Case details for

Poritz v. Sunshine

Case Details

Full title:HARRY PORITZ, Appellant, v . HARRY SUNSHINE, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Apr 9, 1925

Citations

125 Misc. 837 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)
211 N.Y.S. 493