Opinion
March 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled "that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker will be deemed to have earned his commission when he produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller" (Lane-Real Estate Dept. Store v. Lawlet Corp., 28 N.Y.2d 36, 42; see, Reynolds Realty v. Wilczewski, 160 A.D.2d 787, 788). "At the juncture that the broker produces an acceptable buyer he has fully performed his part of the agreement with the vendor and his right to commission becomes enforceable" (Hecht v. Meller, 23 N.Y.2d 301, 305). The broker's right to this commission is not dependent upon performance of the real estate contract unless there is an agreement to the contrary (see, Cornelia Broad Sts. v. Chase, 186 A.D.2d 341).
Here, the plaintiffs earned their brokerage commission when they produced a buyer for the defendants' property who was ready, willing, and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller.
We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.