Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925

Flicker v. Ragan

Flicker v. Ragan
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 11, 1925
126 Misc. 185; 212 N.Y.S. 703; 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1151

Counsel

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

Flicker v. Ragan

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

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 App. Div. 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.