Summary
finding that "plaintiff was not entitled to recover a commission, even though landlord and new tenant were introduced as result of its efforts since transaction that plaintiff attempted to bring about was abandoned, transaction subsequently concluded was fundamentally different from that which was originally contemplated, and plaintiff did not play significant role in subsequent transaction and was not procuring cause thereof."
Summary of this case from Bracha NY, LLC v. Moncler USA Retail LLCOpinion
2709.
Decided January 20, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered July 11, 2002, after a nonjury trial, in an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, directing entry of judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Ian L. Blant, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Stephen C. Pascal, Bill S. Light, for Defendants-Respondents.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger, JJ.
A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's findings that the transaction that plaintiff attempted to bring about was abandoned; that the transaction subsequently concluded by defendant landlord with the new tenant was fundamentally different; that plaintiff did not play a significant role in the subsequent transaction and was not a procuring cause thereof; and that plaintiff therefore is not entitled to a commission even though the landlord and new tenant were introduced as a result of its efforts ( see Cushman Wakefield v. 214 E. 49th St. Corp., 218 A.D.2d 464, 467-468, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 816). We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other claims, including that the subsequent transaction was part of a fraudulent scheme to deprive it of a commission.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.