Hyperlawhypertext legal database Christenfeld v. Davidson 92 N.Y.S. 1119

← Cases

Christenfeld v. Davidson

92 N.Y.S. 1119 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1905-03-03 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Concurring — GIEGERICH, J.

Contents
p. 1119
CHRISTENFELD, Respondent, v. DAVIDSON et al., Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 3, 1905.)

Headnote

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District. Action by Samuel H. Christenfeld against Max Davidson and another. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed. Joseph J. Harris, for appellants. Steuer & Hoffman (Max D. Steuer, of counsel), for respondent.

We are unable to distinguish the contract involved in this action from that which was considered in Jacobs v. Cohen (Sup.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 854 , and was condemned by the Appellate Division of the Second Department as contrary to public policy and void. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment must be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant in this court and the court below.

(concurring in result only). Although I agree with the dissenting opinion in Jacobs v. Cohen (Sup.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 854 , I nevertheless feel constrained by the decision of the majority in that case to vote for a reversal.