From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shalov v. Rosovsky

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 21, 1929
136 Misc. 132 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)

Opinion

June 21, 1929.

Morris F. Moore, for the appellant.

Lawrence J. McGoldrick, for the respondent.


Order unanimously reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs to appellant, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. While the defendant's explanation of his default could well have been deemed sufficient, the papers submitted by him upon the motion to set aside the inquest do not show that he has any defense to the action. He admits making the check upon which the plaintiff sues and says it was given as commission for the sale of a drug store business. The only defense asserted in the motion papers is that the plaintiff was not a licensed broker. That is not a defense. A broker need not be licensed under the provisions of the Real Property Law (Art. 12-A) to bring about a sale of a business. ( Weingast v. Rialto Pastry Shop, 243 N.Y. 113. )

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


Summaries of

Shalov v. Rosovsky

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 21, 1929
136 Misc. 132 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
Case details for

Shalov v. Rosovsky

Case Details

Full title:MEYER SHALOV, Appellant, v. HYMAN ROSOVSKY, First Name Fictitious, and…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jun 21, 1929

Citations

136 Misc. 132 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
239 N.Y.S. 54

Citing Cases

Schultz v. Palmer Welloct Tool Corp.

Several New York cases also buttress this position, their theory being that in this situation sale of the…

Schultz v. Palmer Welloct Tool Corp.

Survey of Real Estate Brokers License Laws (1941), page 77; reprinted Questions and Answers on Real Estate,…