Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff's argument that the parties' letter agreement gave it an exclusive right to sell is unavailing. In order to create an exclusive right to sell, a contract must clearly and expressly provide that a commission is due upon sale by the owner or exclude the owner from independently negotiating a sale. Here, the agreement lacks express language excluding a direct conveyance by defendants, nor is that a necessary implication of its terms. The agreement's language requiring defendants to "inform" plaintiff if contacted about potential transactions is insufficient to create an exclusive right to sell. Moreover, plaintiff fails to show that the agreement's tail provision, entitling plaintiff to a fee for efforts at procuring a transaction during its engagement even if the transaction were completed only after the termination of that engagement, necessarily implied that the parties intended to create an exclusive right to sell.
Plaintiff's alternative argument that it procured the investment in the equity raise that occurred is also unavailing. Plaintiff fails to establish a direct and proximate link between its efforts and the consummated deal, as opposed to an indirect and remote link.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. ObvioHealth Pte Ltd., NY Slip Op 06421 (1st Dep't December 19, 2024)
