Legal Opinion

Broser v. Royal Abstract Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 17, 1966PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgment must be modified since the certificate of title liability contains a valid exculpatory clause, sufficient to insulate the defendant abstract company from liability in excess of $1,000, regardless of whether the action sounds in tort or contract.

Further, dismissal of the counterclaim was improper, since plaintiff’s law firm stands personally liable for contracts executed as agent for undisclosed principals (Goodman Prods. Corp. v. A. Lustig, Inc., 265 App. Div. 506).

The judgment should be modified by decreasing the recovery thereof to the sum of $1,000 with interest and judgment…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Goodman Products Corp. v. A. Lustig, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. L. Smirlock Realty Corp. v. Title Guarantee Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  2. Humm v. Lombard World Trade, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API