Opinion
March 29, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James Brucia, J.).
In light of the fact that there is no evidence which indicates that defendant bank acted in bad faith in rejecting the one prospective buyer that plaintiff presented to the bank during its six month exclusive brokerage contract with the bank, and since the bank was under no obligation to identify to plaintiff the potential buyer to whom it was introduced during the exclusive period by an individual other than plaintiff, plaintiff has not demonstrated its right to a commission for the sale of the instant parcel of land which occurred months after the exclusive agency agreement expired. While defendant had an obligation not to interfere with plaintiff's efforts to procure a buyer during the exclusive agency period, no such interference occurred here (see, Amies v. Wesnofske, 255 N.Y. 156, 163-164). Indeed, the bank properly refused to consummate a deal with plaintiff's prospective buyer only after the prospect refused to agree to pay certain real estate taxes during the option period (cf., Trylon Realty Corp. v. Di Martini, 34 N.Y.2d 899, affg 40 A.D.2d 1029). There is no evidence that the bank's rejection of said potential buyer was based on the bank's desire to avoid having to pay plaintiff its commission (see, Thomson McKinnon Sec. v. Cioccolanti, 161 A.D.2d 523).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.