On October 14, 2025, the First Department issued a decision in Uno A Brokerage Inc. v. Inshur, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 05658, holding that the statute of frauds barred the enforcement of an oral finder’s agreement, explaining:
General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) is aimed at averting the evils arising from oral contracts between the finder and the principal or employer with whom he has assertedly contracted and from whom he seeks compensation and not between fellow finders or finders and other parties. Plaintiff contends that its agreement with defendant falls within the latter exception because the parties were fellow brokers and Munich Re Group was the principal. This argument is not persuasive. The complaint does not assert the type of joint venture relationship contemplated in Dura v Walker, Hart & Co., where the plaintiff was not suing an employer or principal for a fee but a fellow finder for a portion of a fee already received by the latter. Conversely, here, Munich Re is not paying defendant a commission that defendant is supposed to split with plaintiff. Rather, plaintiff was tasked with referring business to defendant, in exchange for a commission from plaintiff, which is the type of broker and principal agreement contemplated by General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) and which must be reduced to writing.
Plaintiff’s contention that General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) does not bar its contract claim because the parties engaged in multiple transactions, as opposed to a single transaction is unavailing.
The parties’ agreement is also barred by General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(1) because the promise to pay commissions depends solely on the acts of third parties. Thus, whether the instant agreement can be completed within one year is beyond the parties’ control.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).