Opinion
2002-03504
Argued April 25, 2003.
May 12, 2003.
In an action to recover a brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated February 27, 2002, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and dismissed the complaint.
Flower, Medalie, Markowitz, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman, Donald Markowitz, and Allan Wasser of counsel), for appellant.
Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (James M. Wicks, Eric W. Penzer, and Carrie E. Foote, of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
To recover a commission, a real estate broker must establish, inter alia, that it procured a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy the subject property on the terms set by the seller (see Marjorie Hausman Realty Co. v. Klaver, 262 A.D.2d 613, 614; cf. Sopher v. Martin, 243 A.D.2d 459, 461; Salazar, Inc. v. Levy, 237 A.D.2d 583). The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds between the defendant and the prospective purchaser procured by the plaintiff with respect to all of the essential terms of the sale (see Marjorie Hausman Realty Co. v. Klaver, supra; Salazar, Inc. v. Levy, supra; 2001 Real Estate Space Catalyst v. DiBenedetto, 207 A.D.2d 442; Gabrielli v. Fabian, 167 A.D.2d 684, 685). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.