Eidlitz v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtUntermyer, J.
In my opinion the order should be reversed and the motion denied upon the ground last stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice O’Malley. I think a fair construction of the agreement annexed to the complaint requires the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in procuring the four assigned contracts to be repaid only if the execution of these contracts results in a surplus “ over and above the cost of installation and field expenses incurred ” by the defendant, together with a five per cent charge for overhead, as provided in paragraph “ seventh” of the agreement. Neither *484in paragraph “sixth” nor…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fleischman v. . FurguesonNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Ansorge v. KaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Hale v. . Omaha National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Koles v. Borough Park Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- White v. SlaybackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
3Cited by14 opinions
- Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Imperatrice v. ImperatriceNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
- Fusco v. BrooksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Savage v. Mathieson Alkali Works Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1940
- Holz v. M. L. Nathanson & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1957
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.