From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flicker v. Ragan

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 11, 1925
126 Misc. 185 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)

Opinion

December 11, 1925.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx.

Stanley Garten, for the appellant.

Sidney B. Cardozo [ Barnett J. Monka of counsel], for the respondent.


The dismissal of the complaint was erroneous. The rule that a broker, in order to earn his commission, must produce a purchaser who is financially able does not apply where an enforcible agreement has been entered into for the purchase of the property. The seller is deemed to have indicated his satisfaction with such purchaser's financial ability by executing the contract. ( Corbin v. Mechanics Traders' Bank, 121 A.D. 744; Alt v. Doscher, 102 id. 344; Slocum v. Ostrander, 141 id. 380; affd., 205 N.Y. 617; Jaffe v. Lederer, 113 Misc. 356.) The judgment is, therefore, reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, BIJUR, LEVY and CHURCHILL, JJ.


Summaries of

Flicker v. Ragan

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 11, 1925
126 Misc. 185 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)
Case details for

Flicker v. Ragan

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL FLICKER, Appellant, v. SADIE G. RAGAN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Dec 11, 1925

Citations

126 Misc. 185 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)
212 N.Y.S. 703

Citing Cases

DOOR KNOB REALTY v. NORTHROP

Where the vendor "accepts" the purchaser by entering into a contract of sale with him, however, the broker is…