Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants' contention that the plaintiff real estate broker is not entitled to its full commission because it violated its fiduciary duty to the defendants by producing a tenant financially unable to meet the terms of the lease is without merit. "It is well settled that absent an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker earns his commission when he produces a party who is ready, willing and able to purchase or lease on the terms set by the seller lessor" (Holzer v Robbins, 141 A.D.2d 505, 506). Since the defendants negotiated and subsequently entered into a lease with the tenant produced by the plaintiff, the subsequent default by the tenant shortly after the lease was entered into does not affect the broker's right to recover a commission pursuant to the brokerage agreement (see, Sauerhoff-Kessler Realty Corp. v Roma Shopping Plaza, 201 A.D.2d 477; Agency, Broad Cornelia St. v Lavigne, 97 A.D.2d 934).
Furthermore, after reviewing the evidence presented at the trial, we find that the trial court correctly determined that the individual defendant Pat Farrelly was personally liable for the plaintiff's commission under the brokerage agreement. It is well settled that an agent for an undisclosed or unidentified principal is individually liable on a contract signed by the agent without disclosing his agency (see, Rennert-Diana Co. v Costarino, 128 A.D.2d 691). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.