Opinion
December 11, 1936.
Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.
Meyer Kivowitz, for the appellant.
William Gold of counsel [ George Goldberg with him on the brief; Levy, Gutman Goldberg, attorneys], for the respondents.
Present — MARTIN, P.J., O'MALLEY, TOWNLEY, GLENNON and COHN, JJ.
The order and judgment appealed from were granted because the second defense pleaded was deemed sufficient. It is to the effect that the services rendered by the plaintiff were of such a character as to require him to be possessed of a real estate brokerage license. (Real Property Law, § 440-a.) The view thus adopted was erroneous. The complaint and papers submitted in opposition to defendants' motion present an issue as to whether the services were not those of a business broker rather than a real estate broker, within the rule of Weingast v. Rialto Pastry Shop, Inc. ( 243 N.Y. 113).
It follows, therefore, that the order and judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Judgment and order unanimously reversed, with costs, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.