Pomerantz v. Sussman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*1020Plaintiff may testify to his negotiations with his customer, though in the absence of the seller, to show that he was the procuring cause of the sale. (Melkon v. Kirk & Co., 232 App. Div. 134; Meyers v. 650 Madison Ave. Corp., 259 App. Div. 109; Lockhart v. Hamlin, 190 N. Y. 132; Tanenbaum v. Nanes, 247 App. Div. 907.) The protection of section 347 of the Civil Practice Act does not extend to the seller, who is a stranger to the deceased buyer’s estate, being neither “ the executor, administrator or survivor ” of the deceased. The second cause of action is brought against the Dragólas as…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lockhart v. . HamlinNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Melkon v. H. B. Kirk & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Meyers v. 650 Madison Avenue Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- Tanenbaum v. NanesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
3Cited by1 opinion
- Levine v. LevineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992