Legal Opinion
Infusino v. Pelnik
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 22, 1965PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtRichard D. Simons, J.
Defendants Fishman and Kessler move pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) to dismiss the complaint as to them for failure to state a cause of action.
Two causes of action are alleged. The first alleges that plaintiff is a real estate broker, employed by defendants Pelnik to sell certain realty in the City of Utica, New York, at the usual rate of commission, that the plaintiff endeavored to do so and did, in fact, introduce movants [defendants Fishman and Kessler], as prospective purchasers, to defendants Pelnik, that thereafter the property was sold by defendants Pelnik to movants for the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hornstein v. PodwitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Keviczky v. LorberNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- O'Connor-Sullivan, Inc. v. OttoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Hornstein v. PodwitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
- Kohler v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.