Bradkin v. Leverto

257 N.E.2d 643 (1970)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P recites that he was employed by Federman & Co, Inc. to find corporations that needed financing. By a letter dated October 25, 1966, Federman acknowledged that P had earned $10,000 for having arranged $200,000 in financing but that he was to receive 10% of any net profit which Federman might realize by a second financing of Mauchly Associates, Inc. in the year 1967. The complaint recites that D was an officer, director and nonvoting stockholder of Federman and that he became acquainted with Mauchly only through P and that he knew or should have known that P was to get 10% of the profits from financing Mauchly. P alleged that D then arranged private financing transactions without P’s knowledge. When P discovered these transactions, he made due demand for his 10% on the more than $1,000,000 but D refused to compensate him. P sued for 10% of the profits realized by D and P sought an accounting. D moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that D and D’s wife loaned Mauchly more than $200,000 and became a director of that corporation. D also claims that because he was an officer of Federman, he was not individually liable under P’s agreement with Federman. The court granted D’s motion and dismissed the complaint; P was in effect seeking a finder’s fee, and thus the Statute of Frauds required that it be in writing and the letter from Federman to P did not bar or obligate D in any way. The Appellate Division affirmed. P appealed.