Crifasi Real Estate, Inc. v Harv Enters., Inc.

2009 NY Slip Op 01940 [60 AD3d 802]

March 17, 2009

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Crifasi Real Estate, Inc., Appellant, v Harv Enterprises,Inc., Respondent.

—[*1]Reisman Peirez & Reisman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (E. Christopher Murray andDaniel Berg of counsel), for appellant.

Rossi & Crowley, LLP, Douglaston, N.Y. (Bernadette M. Crowley, Sally Sancimino,Rosaleen Crowley, and Thomas J. Rossi of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover a brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated January 7, 2008, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"To recover a commission, a real estate broker must establish, inter alia, that it procured apurchaser ready, willing, and able to buy the subject property on the terms set by the seller"(Hampton Country Real Estate v Rizzo, 305 AD2d 458, 459 [2003]). "[M]ere agreementas to price on a proposed sale of real property does not constitute a meeting of the minds ofvendor and vendee so as to entitle the real estate broker to commissions. The parties must bebrought to agreement with respect to all terms customarily encountered in such a transaction"(Kaelin v Warner, 27 NY2d 352, 355 [1971] [internal quotations marks and citationsomitted]; see Hausman Realty Co. v Klaver, 262 AD2d 613 [1999]; Harold F.Shepherd Real Estate v Ferguson, 204 AD2d 392 [1994]).

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through itssubmission of deposition testimony and affidavits demonstrating that a meeting of the minds wasnot reached regarding essential terms of a contract to sell real property (see HamptonCountry Real Estate v Rizzo, 305 AD2d 458 [2003]; Jacob v O'Brien, 252 AD2d515 [1998]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see HamptonCountry Real Estate v Rizzo, 305 AD2d 458 [2003]).[*2]

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to addressthe plaintiff's remaining contentions. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Santucci and Chambers, JJ., concur.