Opinion
June 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff real estate brokers seek to recover a commission, claiming they obtained a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase the defendant's Brooklyn property for the price requested by the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant frustrated a binder agreement entered into with their buyer and subsequently sold the property to third parties, refusing to pay the plaintiffs' commission. The binder agreement relied on by the plaintiffs provided for a sale price of $3,000,000 with a brokerage commission of $150,000. However, the binder omitted mention of many key terms, including an agreed-upon contract date, the method for paying the purchase price, whether by cash or purchase-money mortgage or combination, the amounts to be paid at contract and at closing, when closing was to take place, and when the seller, who had his business on the premises and intended to remain for some months, would have to vacate.
A real estate broker is entitled to his commission only when he procures a purchaser who is ready, willing, and able to purchase on the terms set forth by the seller (see, Rusciano Realty Servs. v. Griffler, 62 N.Y.2d 696; Lane-Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 N.Y.2d 36; Kaelin v. Warner, 27 N.Y.2d 352; Skalky Realty v. Willens, 144 A.D.2d 405; Concordant Assocs. v Slutsky, 104 A.D.2d 920; Wykagyl Agency v. Rothschild, 100 A.D.2d 934). It is undisputed that in the discussions and in the binder agreement there was no meeting of the minds between buyer and seller (see, Monaco v. Nelson, 121 A.D.2d 371). The parties failed to agree on terms customarily encountered in real estate sales transactions, such as the closing date, and in the absence of agreement on essential terms, the plaintiffs did not earn any commission (see, Tri-State Capital v. Lewis, 134 A.D.2d 340). In light of the plaintiffs' failure to even allege that essential terms were agreed upon by both the buyer and seller, we conclude that summary judgment was properly awarded to the seller.
We have reviewed the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.