Case Name: Hampton Country Real Estate, Inc., Appellant, v. Joseph Rizzo, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2003-05-12
Citations: 305 A.D.2d 458
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hampton Country Real Estate, Inc., Appellant, v Joseph Rizzo, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 305
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
Hampton Country Real Estate, Inc., Appellant, v Joseph Rizzo, Respondent.
[759 NYS2d 334]

Opinion:
—In an action to re cover 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.
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 Hausman Realty Co. v Klaver, 262 AD2d 613, 614 [1999]; cf. Sopher v Martin, 243 AD2d 459, 461 [1997]; Salazar, Inc. v Levy, 237 AD2d 583 [1997]). 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 Hausman Realty Co. v Klaver, supra; Salazar, Inc. v Levy, supra; 2001 Real Estate Space Catalyst v DiBenedetto, 207 AD2d 442 [1994]; Gabrielli v Fabian, 167 AD2d 684, 685 [1990]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.