Opinion
August 15, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A plaintiff seeking to recover real estate brokerage fees in an unclosed transaction must establish that he or she has procured a prospect who has reached agreement with the lessor on essential terms and is ready, willing and able to perform (see, Wykagyl Agency v. Rothschild, 100 A.D.2d 934; see also, Feinberg Bros. Agency v. Berted Realty Co., 70 N.Y.2d 828; Rusciano Realty Servs. v. Griffler, 62 N.Y.2d 696; Lane — Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 N.Y.2d 36, 42; Sauerhoff-Kessler Realty Corp. v Roma Shopping Plaza, 201 A.D.2d 477; Blaufeux v. Paznik, 162 A.D.2d 573; Holzer v. Robbins, 141 A.D.2d 505). This, the plaintiff failed to do. The record indicates that while the parties to the proposed transaction had, in fact, signed a letter concerning some material terms to the lease, they did not consider these terms to be complete, final, or binding. Since the proposed tenant never reached an agreement with the defendants concerning the essential terms of the transaction, the plaintiff did not earn its commission. Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.