Case Name: TANENBAUM et al. v. BOEHM et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-12-30
Citations: 120 N.Y.S. 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: TANENBAUM et al. v. BOEHM et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 120
Pages: 392–395

Head Matter:
TANENBAUM et al. v. BOEHM et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 30, 1909.)
Brokers (§ 63 )—Compensation—When Earned.
A broker employed by a landlord to procure a tenant, who procures a tenant who orally agrees to the conditions imposed by the landlord, is entitled to the commission, though no lease is executed because o£ new and unreasonable' terms insisted on by the landlord.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 95; Dec. Dig. § 63. ]
McLaughlin and Ingraham, XT., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Leon Tanenbaum and another, copartners doing business under the firm name of L. Tanenbaum, Strauss & Co., against Abraham Boehm and another, doing business under the firm name of Boehm & Coon. From a judgment for plaintiffs entered on a directed verdict, and from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, HOUGHTON, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
George L. Shearer (Edward W. Hatch, of counsel), for appellants.
Strouse & Strauss (Ernest Hall, of counsel, and Alex. Strouse, on the brief), for respondents.
For other eases see same topic & § number in Dec, & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
CLARKE, J.
This is the second trial of this action. Upon the first trial both sides, at the close of the case, moved for the direction of a verdict. The court said:
"I will grant the motion of the defendants dismissing the complaint on the merits."
Upon appeal (126 App. Div. 731, 111 N. Y. Supp. 185) we considered the case as if the court had directed a verdict for the defendants, reversed the judgment, and ordered a new trial. In our opinion we examined the facts, and, finding that there was no dispute of what had occurred up to the close of the interview between the owners, the proposed tenants, the brokers, and the several counsel on the 14th of December, 1905, when all the terms proposed by the defendants had been acceded to by the proposed tenants conceded to have been procured by the plaintiffs, and the parties to the transaction had declared the terms accepted, and the matter closed, and had shaken hands, held that the brokers' work was done, and their" rights established. We said:
"The right of the broker does not depend upon the execution of the completed contract. He must have failed to have brought the minds of the parties" together. I think the record establishes the fact that the minds of the parties did meet upon every term and condition propounded by the defendants, and that both parties regarded and stated that the transaction was then and' there closed, and that the failure to subsequently consummate was entirely due to the defendants propounding new and unreasonable terms which had never been disclosed theretofore, either to the brokers or to the tenant. The brokers, having done all that they were required to do had earned their commissions."
The learned trial court, upon the second trial, at the close of the whole case, when both parties had moved for the direction of a verdict, deemed that the law of the case had been settled by this court, and granted the motion and directed a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendants asked to go to the jury upon all the questions in the case, and upon the question of whether the minds of the parties met upon an agreement of lease of these premises and duly excepte'd to the denial of that motion.
It does not seem necessary to restate the facts as set out in our former opinion. The learned counsel for the appellants states in his brief that :
"All of the facts brought out at the first trial, as summarized in the prevailing, opinion handed down on the former appeal, were established at the second trial."
If, then, we were right in holding that at the close of the interview on the 14th of December the minds of the parties had met and the brokers' commissions had been then earned, this judgment is right, because the somewhat elaborated testimony in this record of what occurred after that interview, in the attempt to get together upon the terms of the formal lease which was to be executed, in the course of which the transaction finally failed of consummation because of new and unreasonable terms insisted upon by the counsel of the de fendants which had not been submitted to the broker or to the proposéd tenant, cannot affect the result.
If the brokers, upon the facts in this case, had not earned their commissions, I do not see how brokers would be entitled to commissions in any case until the contract evidencing the agreement had been signed, sealed, and delivered. I do not understand that to be the law.
The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents.
HOUGHTON and SCOTT, JJ, concur.