Case Name: Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, L. L. C., Respondent, v. Safari Development Company Limited, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2001-03-08
Citations: 281 A.D.2d 211
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, L. L. C., Respondent, v Safari Development Company Limited, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 281
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, L. L. C., Respondent, v Safari Development Company Limited, Appellant.
[721 NYS2d 648]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 25, 2000, after a nonjury trial, in an action to recover a real estate broker's commission, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the principal amount of $400,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
While the record shows that the prospective buyer procured by plaintiff was willing to assist defendant in effecting a like-kind exchange of the subject condominium unit, a clear preponderance of the evidence shows that the proposed sale was not contingent upon defendant's ability to consummate a like-kind exchange. The original, written brokerage agreement between plaintiff and defendant's predecessor contained no such contingency; the letter of intent prepared by defendant's attorney and signed by the prospective buyer made no reference to any such contingency; and the draft like-kind exchange agreement also prepared by defendant's attorney clearly provided that the transaction was to go forward even if a suitable exchange property could not be acquired. We have considered defendant's other arguments, including that the person procured by plaintiff was not a ready, willing and able buyer, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.