Case ID: nys_41/html/1129-01.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

POLLATSCHEK et al. v. GOODWIN.
    •(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,. First Department.
    October 29, 1896.)
    Action by Pollatschek and others against Goodwin. Motion for leave to appeal to the appellate division for reargument.
    See 40 N. Y. Supp. 682.
   PER. CURIAM.

Every point made by the appellant’s counsel upon the argument of the appeal was fully noted and discussed in the opinion handed down, and this motion seems to be no more than an effort to secure further discussion of well-established principles of law in their application to the facts of the particular case. The main contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the plaintiffs were not mere middlemen, but brokers intrusted with discretionary powers. The contention is wholly with regard to a question of fact; hence this motion cannot J>e said to come within the rules laid down in Lynch v. Sauer, 16 Misc. Rep. 363, 38 N. Y. Supp. 1, as governing motions for leave to appeal to the appellate division. Motion denied, with $10 costs.