Legal Opinion
Northeast General Corp. v. Wellington Advertising, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 6, 1991PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Martin B. Stecher, J.
The defendants move to set aside a jury finding of liability and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (CPLR 4404 [a]).
This was an action for a finder’s fee, the plaintiff alleging that pursuant to the terms of a written contract, it was entitled to compensation for bringing together defendant Harry S. Arpadi, the principal of several of the defendants, and Fred G. Sternau, the principal of the corporation which acquired the Arpadi stock interest in the Wellington companies. The defendants contended that the plaintiff did not find or present…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Wendt v. FischerNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Lamdin v. Broadway Surface Advertising Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Murray v. . BeardNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Minichiello v. Royal Business Funds Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Knauss v. Gottfried Krueger Brewing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Northeast General Corp. v. Wellington Advertising, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- In re WingateNew York Supreme Court · 1996
- Northeast General Corp. v. Wellington Advertising, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Northeast General Corp. v. Wellington Advertising, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Northeast General Corp. v. Wellington Advertising, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993