New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
August 6, 2012
DY REALTY SERVICES, LLC, RESPONDENT,
NORTHERN 35-02, INC. AND KUO REALTY, INC., APPELLANTS.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered September 9, 2010.
DY Realty Servs., LLC v Northern 35-02, Inc.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on August 6, 2012
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ
The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $16,905.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover a brokerage commission allegedly owed to it by defendants in connection with a lease executed between defendants, as lessors, and General Human Outreach in the Community, as lessee. Following a non-jury trial, the Civil Court, upon considering the weight of the documentary evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, found that, despite the fact that there was no signed commission agreement, plaintiff had met its burden of showing that there was an express oral contract entered into between the parties for the payment of a commission and that defendants had accepted and benefitted from the services rendered by plaintiff with regard to securing a tenant to rent their premises. As a result, the court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $16,905.
A real estate broker is entitled to recover a commission upon establishing that he or she (1) is duly licensed, (2) had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) was the procuring cause of the sale or lease (see Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206 ; Stanzoni Realty Corp. v Landmark Props. of Suffolk, Ltd., 19 AD3d 582 ; Dagar Group v Hannaford Bros. Co., 295 AD2d 554 ; Friedland Realty v Piazza, 273 AD2d 351 ). Here, the record amply supports the determination of the Civil Court that plaintiff satisfied its burden of proving that it was duly licensed, that it had an express oral contract with defendants for the payment of a commission (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] ), and that it was the procuring cause of the lease. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to recover the brokerage commission from defendants as agreed upon. Accordingly, as we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's findings, the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 06, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.