
    Edward C. Cerny, Appellant, v. Nellie McNamara, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    May 1, 1925.
    Brokers — real estate broker — action for commissions — purchaser procured by plaintiff refused to execute contract of sale on learning that defendant’s property did not have street frontage — fact that defendant did not own what she employed plaintiff to sell, no defense.
    Plaintiff, a real estate broker, is entitled to judgment in an action for commissions upon procuring a purchaser for defendant’s premises, though said purchaser refused to execute the contract of sale on learning that the defendant’s property did not have a street frontage, particularly where the defendant did not disclose this fact to the plaintiff who had no knowledge of it. The fact that she did not own what she employed him to sell is no defense to this action.
    
      Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, Fifth District.
    
      Sidney A. Clarkson, for the appellant.
    
      John S. Russell, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to appellant, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the amount demanded, with interest and appropriate costs in the court below.

The defendant employed the plaintiff to find a purchaser for her premises No. 255 Senator street. Plaintiff found such a purchaser who was willing to buy the premises upon terms satisfactory to the defendant. The purchaser, however, declined to sign the contract because the defendant insisted upon describing her property according to an old map, which, from the undisputed proof, showed that her property did not front on Senator street but that there was a strip of land between her property and the street. The defendant did not disclose this fact to plaintiff and he had no knowledge of it. He performed his contract by procuring a purchaser, and if defendant did not own the property to the street frontage she should have advised plaintiff of that fact when employing him to sell it. He procured the buyer for what she authorized him to sell. The fact that she did not own what she employed him to sell is no defense to this action. The plaintiff is entitled to his commissions.

Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ.  