Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtM. Henry Martuscbllo, J.
Defendants move pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint herein on the ground that the affirmative defense pleaded thereto is sufficient as a matter of law and is founded upon facts established prima facie by documentary evidence.
The action was brought originally by Nat Freedman and Jack Kaplan as plaintiffs to recover real estate brokerage commissions claimed to be due them in the sum of $187,500; and the same came on to be tried before a jury in May, 1956. During the course of that trial it was developed that two other…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Peri v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Stout, Goldsborough & Perry v. Ennis National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Hathaway v. Orient InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Pierson v. HookerNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Simons v. Supreme Council American Legion of HonorNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Slusher v. Jack Roach Cadillac, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1986
- Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
- Oliphant v. New York Yankers, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1964