Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Broker’s claim for commission survives motion to dismiss

By Howard Koh on April 10, 2014
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Azad Property Group, LLC v. Willspring LLC, Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 656626/2013

Commercial Division Justice Marcy Freidman has allowed a broker’s claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract to pay a commission to survive a motion to dismiss.  In this case, the plaintiff alleged that although it did not have a written agreement with the owner, it produced a buyer, Vornado Realty Trust, that accepted all of the material terms that the owner claimed were necessary for it to agree to a sale.  The plaintiff broker alleged that after Vornado accepted the owner’s terms, but before a contract was signed, the owner received a better offer that it ultimately accepted.

While agreement on price alone does not constitute a meeting of the minds, where the prospective purchaser agrees to all the essential terms set forth by the seller, the seller’s obligation to pay a commission will not be excused because the seller chooses not to proceed in finalizing the contract.

Justice Friedman wrote that “While agreement on price alone does not constitute a meeting of the minds, where the prospective purchaser agrees to all the essential terms set forth by the seller, the seller’s obligation to pay a commission will not be excused because the seller chooses not to proceed in finalizing the contract.”  Justice Freidman further ruled that the complaint adequately alleged that the owner “availed itself of the plaintiff’s services to procure a prospective purchaser, knowing [the broker] expected payment for acting on the seller’s behalf to extract concessions [from the prospective purchaser] on price and mortgage defeasance terms.”  Accordingly, Justice Freidman ruled that the plaintiff-broker stated a cause of action for breach of an implied in fact contract.

The lesson of Azad Property Group is that a signature and a completed deal are not necessary elements to a broker’s claim for a commission.  Rather what is essential is that a broker set forth evidence that it produced a prospective buyer that is ready, willing, and able to close on the seller’s clearly articulated essential terms.

Photo of Howard Koh Howard Koh
Read more about Howard KohEmail
  • Posted in:
    Real Estate & Construction
  • Blog:
    New York City Real Estate Litigator
  • Organization:
    Howard Koh of Meister Seelig & Fein LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Beyond the First 100 Days
  • In the Legal Interest
  • Cooking with SALT
  • The Fiduciary Litigator
  • CCN Mexico Report™
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo