Can you identify this aircraft?
As some have written in the comments, it is a Westbrook W-5-B Sportster.
Westbrook started as a company in 1929 and failed in 1931. Approximately five W-5 sportsters have been built:

[NC9N] c/n 501 destroyed in a 1931 crash
[853W] c/n 502,
[NC966V] c/n 503 lost in a 1938 accident
[NC92V] c/n 504,
possibly unlicensed one,  c/n 505,

source / further info: aerofiles.com / secretprojects.co.uk / all-aero.com 

Munch &amp; Romeo, Inc
The aircraft was shown on the business card of Munch and Romeo, which also shows the prices they charged for flight instruction:

I found evidence that one of the aircraft of Munch and Romeo was  involved in a mid-air collision in 1936:

Negligence -Collision -Insufficient Allegation of Agency.
-[NewYork]  In an action for damages arising out of a collision between
the plaintiff's airplane with that of the defendant as both were about
to land,the complaint alleged that the defendant's plane was being
operated by one Donahue with the consent and permission of the
defendant, and that the collision was caused solely by Donahue's
negligence. On motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
cause of action, held: complaint dismissed, with leave to plaintiff
to serve an amended complaint within ten days.There were no
allegations that Donahue was operating the defendant's airplane as
his agent, servant or employee, or in the defendant's business
and within the scope of his employment. None will be inferred from the
allegation that the defendant was the owner of and in control of the
airplane.An allegation that Donahue was operating the vehicle with
defendant's con-sent and permission would be sufficient to charge the
latter in a case arising out of an automobile collision on a public
highway under §59 of the Vehicle and Traffic law, but the statute is
not applicable here. Consequently the common law rule governs, by which
it is settled in New York that the owner of a vehicle will not be held
liable for negligence of its operator unless at the time it was being
used in the owner's business by the operator within the scope of his
employment. Munch &amp; Romeo, Inc. v. Caton, 96 N. Y. L. J.876, 235 C. C.
H. 1213 (County Court, Nassau County, New York, Sept. 25,1936).

source: Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Volume 8|Issue 1, Article  8 scholar.smu.edu

The company owned other aircraft as well; by 1936 they seemed to be active in aircraft trading as they tried to sell several aircraft in advertisements in Aero Digest, Volume 29 of July 1936

AERONCA C-3: New September 1935; 150 hours  total time ; just top
overhauled, A-l condition  throughout, SI. 425. Munch &amp; Romeo, Inc.,
Hangar  7, Roosevelt Field, Mineola, New York.


1936 TAYLOR CUB: 2 months old, 35 hours total  time, \$1,195. Gee Bee,
Kinner K-5: 45 hours since  overhaul, \$875. Avian Cirrus, \$600. Also
Great Lakes,  Birds, Cessnas, Monocoupes. Munch &amp; Romeo, Inc.,  Hangar
7, Roosevelt Field 1 , Mineola, New York.