Legal Opinion

Goldman v. Rubenstein

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 16, 1925PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Callaghan, J.:

The plaintiff and defendant each moves for judgment. The facts are not disputed. The defendant procured a purchaser for a drug store owned and conducted by the plaintiff and in connection therewith sold a lease which had five years to run. One acting as a broker for the sale of such a lease should be licensed, under the provisions of section 440-a of the Real Property Law, and no action can be maintained to collect commissions earned on such a sale unless the broker has first procured a license. (Real Prop. Law, § 442-a; Roman v. Lobe, 212 App. Div. 162.) This defendant was not…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rosetti v. LozanoTexas Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Wheelock v. . LeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. Grow v. AlbeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
  4. Sherley v. TrabueCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
  5. Long v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Snyder v. Pleasant Valley Finishing Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
  2. Warshor v. WarshorNew York Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Handy v. CohenMount Vernon City Court · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API