Case ID: nys_147/html/0353-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KONOPOLSKY et al. v. HEIDENREICH.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    May 7, 1914.)
    Brokers (§ 52)—Compensation—Failure to Complete Contract.
    A broker is not entitled to a commission, where the terms of a proposed lease were never agreed to by the parties because the owner became dissatisfied with the financial responsibility of the proposed lessee before the time set for the meeting at which the terms of the lease were to be settled.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 73; Dec. Dig. § 52.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
    Action by Louis Konopolsky and another against Gussie Heidenreich. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued April term, 1914, before GUY, PAGE, and WHITAKER, JJ.
    Bernard Chambers, of New York City, for appellant.
    I. Gainsburg, of New York City, for respondents.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § numbbb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

From the present state of the record it is apparent that the minds of the parties never met upon many of the essentials necessary to constitute a lease. It appears that the parties discussed some of the terms of the proposed lease, and an appointment was made to meet, later on, at the office of a lawyer for the purpose of arranging such terms and, if agreed upon, to have a lease drawn. Before the time set, however, the lessor became dissatisfied with the responsibility of the proposed lessee and the matter fell through. Under such circumstances the brokers did not earn their commissions.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.