Opinion
January 25, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
Plaintiffs contend that defendants conspired to tortiously interfere with a cobrokerage agreement between plaintiffs and defendant-respondent Edward Lee Cave, Inc. However, as stated in Israel v. Wood Dolson Co. ( 1 N.Y.2d 116, 120), as a predicate to a right of recovery for tortious interference with the performance of a contract, the following four requirements must be met: a valid contract must be shown to exist; defendants must be shown to have known of the contract; defendants must be shown to have intentionally procured the breach of that contract; and damages flowing from that interference must be shown. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that either the Higginsons or DEGI knew of the cobrokerage agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant-respondent Edward Lee Cave, Inc.
Plaintiffs have also failed to show that they would have been entitled to a brokerage commission. To sustain an award of commissions on a brokerage contract, a plaintiff broker must show substantially more than that he "initially called the property to the attention of the ultimate purchaser" (Greene v. Hellman, 51 N.Y.2d 197, 205). To be entitled to a commission, a broker must demonstrate that he was the "procuring cause of the sale * * * [bringing] together the `minds of the buyer and seller'" (Greene v. Hellman, 51 N.Y.2d, supra, at 206; see also, Sibbald v Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N.Y. 378).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.