In A-1 Realty Network of Homes, Inc. v. Kwang Ho Kim , A-1 negotiated an agreement on behalf of Mr. Kim (and others) where, for the sum of $1.1 million, two purchasers would buy the property in question, and A-1 would receive a brokerage commission in the amount of $50,000.
Although the deal closed, the commission was not paid. After litigation was started in the Suffolk County Supreme Court, that court was of the opinion that A-1 was entitled to its commission and awarded the broker a money judgment as against Ho Kim (and the other defendants) in the sum of $50,000.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed finding that A-1 had failed to demonstrate an entitlement to relief. As the court observed:
"To recover a commission, a broker must establish that he or she is duly licensed, that he or she has a contract, express or implied, with the party charged with paying the commission, and that he or she was the procuring cause of the sale or lease" .... A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. The Supreme Court therefore erred in awarding the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action against the appellants.
What is procuring cause?
The answer to that question will vary, because a number of factors can influence the response.* But, typically, if the transaction wouldn't have consummated without the broker's efforts, then that individual will be viewed as the "procuring cause."
And that's no hokim!
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: A-1 Realty Network of Homes, Inc. v. Kwang Ho Kim
_______________________
*For a 17-page analysis distributed by the National Association of Realtors, please use the following link: Procuring Cause