Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff is not entitled to a brokerage commission, since it was not the procuring cause of the sale (see, Feinberg Bros. Agency v. Berted Realty Co., 70 N.Y.2d 828; Manning v. Briar Hall N., 151 A.D.2d 650; Gordon v. Hong, 126 A.D.2d 514). The record indicates that the plaintiff's sole efforts consisted of some brief contacts with the sellers with respect to the property and showing the prospective buyers the property. The best and the only price offer the plaintiff obtained from the prospective buyers was less than what the sellers had originally set as the asking price. After the sellers rejected the offer, no further negotiations took place between the sellers and the plaintiff. Subsequently, the sellers negotiated an entirely different deal with the purchasers through a different broker, and the sale was consummated. In light of the foregoing facts, the plaintiff was not the direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction of the sellers to the buyers and the consummation of the sale (see, Greene v. Hellman, 51 N.Y.2d 197, 206-207).

We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.