History
  • No items yet
midpage
Poritz v. Sunshine
125 Misc. 837
N.Y. App. Term.
1925
Check Treatment
Per Curiam:.

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 bis 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 App. Div. 368, and cases cited.) There is, therefore, no controverted question of fact except the amount of commission.

Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Poritz v. Sunshine
Court Name: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Date Published: Apr 9, 1925
Citation: 125 Misc. 837
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Term.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.