Case ID: misc_125/html/0837-01.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

Harry Poritz, Appellant, v. Harry Sunshine, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    April 9, 1925.
    Brokers — real estate broker — action for commissions — proof showed defendant requested plaintiff to procure purchaser and that plaintiff induced third party to consider purchase — plaintiff’s right to commission not affected by fact that defendant did not know plaintiff sent purchaser.
    Plaintiff, a real estate broker, is entitled to the amount of commissions arising from the sale of defendant’s store, in view of the undisputed facts that defendant authorized the plaintiff to find a purchaser for the premises, that defendant knew plaintiff would ask for a commission, and that plaintiff induced a third party to consider the purchase of the premises. The fact that plaintiff did not participate in the negotiations, or that the defendant did not know that plaintiff sent the prospective purchaser to him, is immaterial.
    
      Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, Third District.
    
      Joseph Gans, for the appellant.
    
      Robert S. Dubois, for the respondent.
   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.