Case ID: nys_68/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CONLAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GOLDBERG v. GELLES.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    January 4, 1901.)
    Brokers—Principal Failing to Perform—Commissions.
    Where defendant engaged plaintiff to find him a purchaser for certain premises, and the broker found one ready and able to purchase the property for the amount asked, but the principal refused to sell on the ground that his wife would not consent to the arrangement, the broker was entitled to recover his commissions.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Samuel Goldberg against Isaac Gelles. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before McCARTHY, CONLAN, and SCHUCHMAN, JJ.
    Max. D. Steuer, for appellant.
    Manheim & Manheim, for respondent.
   CONLAN, J.

The action was to recover the commissions of a broker in finding a customer for the purchase of certain premises which the defendant had for sale in New York City. It appears that the defendant engaged the plaintiff to find him a purchaser for the premises which he had for sale, and fixed the amount of the consideration to be paid therefor. It also appears that the .plaintiff found such a person, and one ready and able to carry out the agreement between the parties, and that then it was objected by the defendant that his wife would not consent to the arrangement, and upon this state of facts there was a recovery in the plaintiff’s favor.

An examination of the record does not show any reason why the judgment should be disturbed. The judgment is, therefore, with the order appealed from, affirmed, with costs. All concur.