Opinion
June 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.).
In this action to recover a real estate broker's commission, questions of fact are presented as to whether plaintiff through its vice president Arida violated its fiduciary obligation to its client, defendant-lessor, by substituting without the approval of defendant's general counsel certain terms in the subject lease less favorable to defendant and more favorable to the lessee bank with whom the vice president allegedly had an ongoing business relationship. Such a breach, if proven, would result in the forfeiture of any right of compensation (John J. Reynolds, Inc. v Snow, 11 A.D.2d 653, affd 9 N.Y.2d 785). Regarding the fact that the corporate brokerage license failed to mention Mr. Arida, who was individually licensed as a broker, we find such lack of compliance with Real Property Law § 441-b (2) not a bar to any possible recovery and distinguishable from the situation in Brener Lewis v Fawcett Publs. ( 197 Misc. 207, affd 276 App. Div. 994, lv denied 276 App. Div. 1081), where the addition of a person with a salesman's license to a corporate brokerage license was expressly prohibited by the statute. The purpose of sanctions for lack of compliance with relevant licensing laws is to protect the public, "`not to permit others to take advantage of the violation of the statute to escape their obligations'". (Galbreath-Ruffin Corp. v 40th 3rd Corp., 19 N.Y.2d 354, 362-363, quoting Pound, J., in Bendell v De Dominicis, 251 N.Y. 305, 310.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.