Legal Opinion

Pomerantz v. Sussman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 14, 1952PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Lockhart v. . HamlinNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
  2. Melkon v. H. B. Kirk & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
  3. Meyers v. 650 Madison Avenue Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  4. Tanenbaum v. NanesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Levine v. LevineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API