Opinion
April 18, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the court properly concluded that the plaintiff's complaint set forth allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for the recovery of a real estate broker's commission. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the defendants employed the plaintiff to sell the subject property, that the plaintiff procured a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase the property on terms acceptable to the defendants, that the defendants subsequently entered a written contract with the buyer produced by the plaintiff, that demand for the commission agreed upon was made, and that no payment was received. In light of the foregoing, the appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied (see, e.g., Rusciano Realty Servs. v. Griffler, 62 N.Y.2d 696; Concordant Assocs. v Slutsky, 104 A.D.2d 920, 921). Mangano, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.