Legal Opinion
Aronson v. Carobine
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided May 11, 1927PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHayes, J.
The following facts were conceded at the trial: That the plaintiffs are duly licensed real estate brokers in the State of New York; that the defendant is a resident of the State of New York, and has his place of business in the city of New York. The plaintiffs also have their residence and place of business in New York.
That in April, 1926, the defendant engaged the plaintiffs to sell some land he owned in the town of Cresskill, in the State of New Jersey; that the defendant fixed the terms of the contract, the amount of the mortgages, the amount of cash required, and the purchase price of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Dyke v. Erie Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Pease & Elliman, Inc. v. Gladwin Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- McKnight v. McGuireAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1921
- Richards & Co. v. WreschnerNew York Supreme Court · 1915
- Newman v. PiersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cochran v. EllsworthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Stagg v. LawtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
- Bitterman v. SchulmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
- Copellman v. RabinowitzCity of New York Municipal Court · 1955
- MacGregor v. LabuteMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.