Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Further, as the plaintiff failed to establish any contractual privity between itself and the proposed defendant, or that there was a meeting of the minds between the buyer and the seller on the essential terms of the sale ( see Salazar, Inc. v. Levy, 237 A.D.2d 583), the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a party defendant since "an amendment which is devoid of merit, and whose insufficiency or lack of merit is 'clear and free from doubt' will not be permitted" ( Mathison v. Zocco, 207 A.D.2d 434, 435, quoting Hauptman v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 162 A.D.2d 588, 589). The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs. To recover a commission, a real estate broker must establish, inter alia, that it procured a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy the subject property on the terms set by the seller (see Marjorie Hausman Realty Co. v. Klaver, 262 A.D.2d 613, 614; cf. Sopher v. Martin, 243 A.D.2d 459, 461; Salazar, Inc. v. Levy, 237 A.D.2d 583). The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds between the defendant and the prospective purchaser procured by the plaintiff with respect to all of the essential terms of the sale (see Marjorie Hausman Realty Co. v. Klaver, supra; Salazar, Inc. v. Levy, supra; 2001 Real Estate Space Catalyst v. DiBenedetto, 207 A.D.2d 442; Gabrielli v. Fabian, 167 A.D.2d 684, 685). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. To satisfy the Statute of Frauds and be enforceable as a final contract, a binder agreement for the sale of real property must identify the parties, describe the subject property, recite all of the essential terms of a complete agreement, and be signed by the party to be charged (see Century 21 Volpe Realty v. Jhong Kim, 231 A.D.2d 667; O'Brien v. West, 199 A.D.2d 369; Ramos v. Lido Home Sales Corp., 148 A.D.2d 598). The terms upon which there must be agreement include those essential terms customarily encountered in a real estate transaction (see M.A. Salazar, Inc. v. Levy, 237 A.D.2d 583; Taibi v. American Banknote Co., 135 A.D.2d 810). Where the binder agreement contemplates the future execution of a formal contract, and essential terms have been omitted or left for future negotiation, the binder is unenforceable (see Jaffer v. Miles, 134 A.D.2d 572; Read v. Henzel, 67 A.D.2d 186). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the one-page preprinted binder agreement signed by the parties, which made several references to the future execution of a more formal contract, is insufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Although the property which was the subject of the sale was part of a condominium development, the binder contained no indication of this fact, and did not state that the conveyance was to include the defendants' interest in the common elements of the condominium, or that the sale was subject to the Condominium Board's right of first refusal.

It is well settled that a real estate broker can recover a commission only if the broker procures a purchaser who is ready, willing, and able to purchase on the terms set forth by the seller ( see, Rusciano Realty Servs. v. Griffler, 62 N.Y.2d 696; M.A. Salazar, Inc. v. Levy, 237 A.D.2d 583; Blaufeux v. Paznik, 162 A.D.2d 573). Here, however, it is clear from the binder that the parties never reached a meeting of the minds as to the terms customarily contained in an agreement for the sale of real property, such as a contract date, the method for payment of the purchase price, whether the premises was to be sold in "as is" condition or with seller's warranties, and when closing was to take place.

Indeed, while the price may appear to be the prime focus of a bargain, for there to be the meeting of the minds required for an enforceable contract there must be an accord with respect to the other terms customary and essential to the transaction, including a real estate transfer. M. A. Salazar, Inc. v. Levy, 237 AD2d 583 (2d Dept 1997); Helan Realty & Development Corp. v. Skyview Meadows Development Corp., 204 AD2d 601 (2d Dept 1994). Moreover, merely agreeing to pay '"cash" may be seductively attractive, but standing alone it will be deemed insufficient.

However, "[m] ere agreement as to price on a proposed sale of real property does not constitute a meeting of the minds of buyer and seller so as to entitle the real estate broker to a commission." ( M.A. Salazar, Inc. v.Levy, 237 A.D.2d 583, 584, 655 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2nd Dept., 1997) (citations omitted).

RuscianoRealty Services v. Griffler, 62 N.Y.2d 696, 476 N.Y.S.2d 526, 465 N.E.2d 33 (1984). See also, Marjorie Hausman Realty Co., v. Klaver, 262 A.D.2d 613, 692 N.Y.S.2d 681 (2nd Dept. 1999); Balfour v. Passarelli, 245 A.D.2d 72, 665 N.Y.S.2d 749 (3rd Dept. 1997); M.A. Salazar, Inc., v. Levy, 237 A.D.2d 583, 655 N.Y.S.2d 612 (2nd Dept. 1997); Blaufeux v. Paznik, 162 A.D.2d 573, 556 N.Y.S.2d 762 (2nd Dept. 1990). However, the broker's right to receive the commission otherwise owed to him may be varied by agreement.