Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
WILLIAM CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Clifton S. HARRISON, et al., Defendants, Banque Arabe et Internationale D'Investissement, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J., and a jury), entered May 24, 1996, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $250,000 as against defendant Banque Arabe et Internationale D'Investissement (BAII) and dismissing plaintiff's claim and BAII's cross claim against defendants Clifton S. Harrison and Teitelbaum Partners, Ltd., unanimously affirmed, with costs.
BAII's present argument that the court erred in its apparent authority charge, or, in the alternative, that there was insufficient evidence of its subsidiary's executives' apparent authority to bind it to any agreement, is unpreserved either by exception to the charge or by a motion directed to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we decline to consider it (Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v. Kellerman, 172 A.D.2d 307, 568 N.Y.S.2d 389, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 856, 574 N.Y.S.2d 937, 580 N.E.2d 409). That there was some discrepancy in the testimony with regard to additional compensation in the form of an equity percentage in the subject real property does not render the terms of the oral agreement indefinite, inasmuch as there was clear testimony as to the $250,000 fee that plaintiff sought, which was the only compensation as to which the jury was charged. The court's questioning was designed to clarify the issues and did not amount to the type of repeated prejudicial intrusions that have been found to prevent the jury from considering the evidence in the “ ‘calm untrammelled spirit necessary to effect justice’ ” (cf., e.g., Campbell v. Rogers & Wells, 218 A.D.2d 576, 579, 631 N.Y.S.2d 6). We have considered BAII's other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 10, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)