Broker Entitled to Commission Based Upon Defendant’s Refusal of a Purchase Offer/Copy of Purchase Offer Properly Put in Evidence
The Third Department determined plaintiff real estate broker was entitled to a commission because he presented a willing buyer at the price agreed to in the listing agreement and one of the property owners, the defendant, refused the offer because he no longer wanted to sell. In the course of the decision, the court noted that a copy of the purchase offer was properly received in evidence (in the absence of the original):
“In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker will be deemed to have earned his [or her] commission when he [or she] produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller” … . The listing agreement identified the parties, the property, the asking price, and an agreement to pay an 8% commission in exchange for plaintiff producing a buyer. This was sufficient information to create a valid listing agreement … . Defendant asserts that the listing agreement is invalid because not all of the property owners signed it … . However, a contract to pay compensation to a real estate broker or salesperson need not be in writing to be effective (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]). …
Supreme Court did not err in accepting into evidence a copy of a second version of the offer to purchase. Although the best evidence rule “requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven” …, secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original document may be admitted where the court finds a sufficient explanation for the absence of the original, that the proponent “has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith,” and that the secondary evidence accurately reflects the original … . Posson … v Przestrzelski, 516677, 3rd Dept 11-27-13