Case ID: ny-st-rep_29/html/0323-01.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

Gerson Goldstein, Resp’t, v. George Walters, App’lt.
    
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed February 3, 1890.)
    
    1. Bbokebs—Commissions.
    Plaintiff failed to induce defendant to make a sale to one T. Thereafter defendant sold to one M., who in reality purchased for T.; but this was concealed from defendant. Held, that plaintiff was not entitled to brokerage on such sale.
    2. Same.
    The fact that a person is a purchaser of real estate does not necessarily prevent his being also the procuring cause of the sale.
    Motion for reargument, and for leave to go to the court of appeals.
    
      D. A. Sullivan, for motion; Wm. H. Hamilton, opposed.
    
      
       See 28 N. Y. State Rep., 177.
    
   Per Curiam.

This actionwas commenced in a district court to recover broker’s commissions upon the sale of certain real estate, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal to this court, such judgment was reversed, the opinion delivered conclusively establishing the fact that the plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the sale, but that Martin & Wray were, and further on holding that the sale was made to Martin. The plaintiff claims that because Martin was the purchaser, he cannot at the same time be the procuring cause of the sale. We fail to see the force of this argument, because it is an every-day occurrence that a party making a purchase does so without the intervention of any broker, and although Martin may have acted as the agent for Thomas, this fact was concealed from the defendant. At any rate it is clear that Goldstein, the plaintiff, had failed to induce the defendant to make the sale which Martin & Wray subsequently induced him to make, and that in no event is he entitled to brokerage for a sale consummated by other parties.

The motion for a reargument, or for leave to go to the court of appeals is, therefore, denied, with ten dollars costs.

Bookstaver and Bischoff, JJ., concur.