Was the broker a "licensed real estate broker?" If so, he may be
correct. See R.B. Ventures v. Shane
(http://law.touro.edu/2ndCircuit/April97/96-7669.html).
In that case, Footnote 1 reads, "Under New York law, which both
parties agree controls in this diversity case, RBV's contract claims
are not precluded by the Statute of Frauds. Licensed real estate
brokers, such as Blitz/RBV, are exempt from the Statute's requirement
that brokerage commission contracts be in writing to be enforceable.
See N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-701(a)(10) (McKinney 1989); Andover
Realty, Inc. v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 100 A.D.2d 157, 161, 473
N.Y.S.2d 393, 396 (1st Dep't 1984), aff'd, 64 N.Y.2d 1006, 489
N.Y.S.2d 52, 478 N.E.2d 193 (1985)."
Apparently, in NY, licensed real estate brokers found a way to get
around General Obligations Law section 5-701(a)(1), which otherwise
requires such contracts to be in writing. If I were you, I would
check with a NY lawyer, but you might want to first "push back" and
recite NY General Obligations Law section 5-701(a)(10), which reads:
"Every agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some
note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party
to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement,
promise or undertaking: ... (10) Is a contract to pay compensation for
services rendered in negotiating a . . . lease . . .. 'Negotiating'
includes procuring an introduction to a party to the transaction or
assisting in the negotiation or consummation of the transaction. This
provision shall apply to a contract implied in fact or in law...."
What this section means is that such brokerage contracts must be in
writing, but as I said, apparently there is a loophole for "licensed
real estate brokers." |
