Opinion
5341
December 11, 2001.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered May 7, 2001, after a non-jury trial, in plaintiff's favor and against defendant in the amount of $1,221,370, plus interest from August 1, 1998 and costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Paul Frohman, for plaintiff-respondent.
Susan Baumel-Cornicello, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe, Buckley, JJ.
The evidence duly credited by the trial court established that plaintiff was the procuring cause of the lease executed between defendant and the tenant that plaintiff brought to its attention and the court properly awarded damages in quantum meruit (see, Edward S. Gordon Co. v. Peninsula New York Partnership, 245 A.D.2d 189). The fact that plaintiff did not participate in working out the terms of the lease does not deprive it of its right to compensation (see, Eugene J. Busher, Inc. v. Galbreath-Ruffin Realty Co., 22 A.D.2d 879, affd 15 N.Y.2d 992; Buck v. Cimino, 243 A.D.2d 681, 684, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 807). Although the terms of the original agreement are a relevant consideration in establishing the amount of a quantum meruit award (see, Klein v. Eubank, 263 A.D.2d 357), after the agreement's termination, they are no longer the sole standard (see, Matter of Tillman, 259 N.Y. 133, 135-136). The trial court's determination that plaintiff was entitled to compensation of $1,221,370 is supported by the unrebutted testimony of plaintiff's expert, which the court credited, and should not be disturbed on appeal (see, Quantum Realty Serv., Inc. v. ISE Am., Inc., 214 A.D.2d 420).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.