New York Supreme Court, 1908

Rabinowitz v. Pizer

Rabinowitz v. Pizer
New York Supreme Court · Decided February 19, 1908 · Fitzgerald
108 N.Y.S. 994 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Max D. Steuer (William M. Seabury, of counsel), for plaintiffs., Max Schleimer (Morgan J. O’Brien, of counsel), for defendant.

Rabinowitz v. Pizer

Opinion of the Court

FITZGERALD, J.

In Matter of Abraham v. Goldberg, 6 Misc. Rep. 43, 25 N. Y. Supp. 1113, the attention of the learned court seems not to have been directed to the question of public policy, and the demurrer herein must be sustained, for the reason that the agreement attempted to be made was void under well-settled authority. Knauss v. Krueger Brewing Co., 142 N. Y. 70, 36 N. E. 867; Carman v. Beach, 63 N. Y. 97; Robinson v. Clock, 38 App. Div. 67, 55 N. Y. Supp. 976; Auerbach v. Curie, 119 App. Div. 175, 104 N. Y. Supp. 233.

Demurrer sustained, with costs.

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