Goldman v. Rubinstein

Headnote

Former adjudication — real estate brokers — commissions — license — judgment of Municipal Court, affirmed by Appellate Term, in action to recover commissions as real estate broker, res adjudícala in subsequent action against broker to recover penalty for so acting without license.

Goldman v. Rubinstein, 214 App. Div. 791 , affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 12, 1925, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendant for a dismissal of the complaint and granting a motion- by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings, denied the plaintiff’s said motion and granted that of defendant. Defendant recovered judgment in the Municipal Court of the City of New York against plaintiff for commissions, as real estate brokers, for procuring a purchaser for plaintiff’s drug store, which judgment was thereafter affirmed by the Appellate Term. Upon the appeal plaintiff raised the question that defendant was 'not a licensed real estate broker. Plaintiff has brought this action under section 442-f of the Real Property Law to recover from defendant

the penalty provided for acting as real estate broker without a license. The Appellate Division held that the judgment in the former action was res adjudicata of' this and directed a dismissal of the complaint.