From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pallota v. Gullo

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 16, 1959
18 Misc. 2d 381 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)

Opinion

June 16, 1959

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, FRED G. MORITT, J.

Philip Rosen and Jacob D. Goldzweig for appellant.

Eugene Gibilaro for respondents.


The evidence indicates that after showing the house to defendant-appellant and calling her on the telephone on a single occasion, plaintiffs abandoned their efforts to effect a sale. The property was later sold by another broker who was paid his commission. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs failed to make out a case upon any of the theories asserted ( Newberry Co. v. Warnecke Co., 267 App. Div. 418, affd. 293 N.Y. 698). In any event, the cause of action for conspiracy fell with the dismissal of the cause of action asserted against the seller for commissions, from which no appeal was taken. ( Muldoon v. Silvestre, 283 App. Div. 886.)

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with $30 costs to defendant, Helen Malinowski, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Concur — PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Pallota v. Gullo

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 16, 1959
18 Misc. 2d 381 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)
Case details for

Pallota v. Gullo

Case Details

Full title:SEVERINO S. PALLOTA et al., Doing Business as CANTALUPO REALTY CO.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jun 16, 1959

Citations

18 Misc. 2d 381 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)
193 N.Y.S.2d 487