Opinion
June 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
No issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff was the procuring cause of the October 1994 lease, and none of the disclosure it seeks could possibly aid it in establishing that it was, or was prevented from becoming such by bad faith, tortious interference or otherwise ( see, Reilly Co. v. Rockefeller Ctr. Mgt. Corp., 223 A.D.2d 477). A showing that a broker simply introduced the parties or called the property to the tenants attention, without more, does not entitle the broker to a commission; there must be a proximate link between the brokers efforts and the consummation of the transaction ( see, Greene v. Hellman, 51 N.Y.2d 197, 205-206; Cushman Wakefield v. 214 E. 49th St. Corp., 218 A.D.2d 464, 467, appeal dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 951, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 816). Here, the uncontroverted evidence shows that plaintiff, which at most had an oral, nonexclusive agreement with defendant landlord, had merely introduced defendant prospective tenant to the premises, made inquiries about the amount and configuration of space available for lease there, and repeated a request of the prospective tenant for architectural plans. While this apparently resulted in some contact between the landlord and the prospective tenant, it is undisputed that the principals did not begin to discuss specific proposals for essential terms of a lease until December 1993, after the landlord had retained a different broker, and more than a year after plaintiff ceased to make any substantive efforts in the fall of 1992. Only after still another set of brokers became involved in August 1994 were drafts of a lease even circulated, and the lease itself was not executed until October 1994, after negotiations in which plaintiff played no part. Nor can plaintiff recover on the theory that the landlord, in bad faith, prevented it from procuring the lease, inasmuch as plaintiff's efforts were not "`about to prove effectual'" at the time they ceased, approximately two years before the lease was executed ( cf., Goodman v. Marcol, Inc., 261 N.Y. 188, 192; see also, Aegis Prop. Servs. Corp. v. Hotel Empire Corp., 106 A.D.2d 66, 75). Plaintiff's cause of action against the prospective tenant for tortious interference with its contractual relations with the landlord is also without merit, there being no evidence that the landlord breached any contract it had with plaintiff ( see, NBT Bancorp v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 N.Y.2d 614, 620-621).
Concur — Lerner, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.