On October 19, 2022, the Second Department issued a decision in Saunders Ventures, Inc. v. Catcove Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op. 05879, holding that a broker was entitled to a commission because it was the procuring cause of a sale, explaining:
To prevail on a cause of action to recover a commission, the broker must establish (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) that it had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) that it was the procuring cause of the sale. Here, the issue disputed by the parties was whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. To establish that a broker was the procuring cause of a transaction, the broker must establish that there was ‘a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote between the bare introduction of the parties to the transaction and the consummation of the sale. In order to qualify for a commission, a broker need not have been involved in the ensuing negotiations or in the completion of the sale, if such a direct and proximate causal link.
In the present case, we conclude that the evidence established that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. In concluding otherwise, the trial court assigned undue weight to the 2008 letter from the County to one of the defendant entities. This was a form letter sent to all properties on the master list and although Gotthelf returned the letter, having checked the box indicating her interest in discussing a possible sale to the County, there is no evidence that either party followed up or took any action whatsoever to explore a potential sale to the County in connection with this letter. It was not until Minetree began to market the subject properties and approached TNC, more than one year later, that any discussions were had with the County.
On the other hand, the trial court gave too little weight to significant evidence the plaintiff submitted in support of its claim to a commission. Although the defendants elicited much testimony in an attempt to minimize Minetree’s involvement, such as testimony that Minetree did not have contacts with the County, that Parsons suggested the bargain sale, and that the County, TNC, and PLT were all known to Gotthelf prior to Minetree’s involvement, the defendants’ evidence was severely undermined by a critical admission. Specifically, Gotthelf admitted that had the sale gone through with TNC as the contract vendee rather than PLT, the plaintiff would have been entitled to a commission. In light of this admission, the only real question is whether the plaintiff could no longer be considered the procuring cause of the sale once TNC was replaced with PLT. We answer that question in the negative.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).