CITY CENTER REAL ESTATE INC v. Laib Fleischman, et al., Defendants. (2007)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered February 15, 2006, which, in this action involving a dispute over a real estate brokerage fee, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, declaring the co-brokerage agreement at issue unenforceable, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although it is true that defendant-appellant as an attorney is authorized to act as a real estate broker under Real Property Law § 442-f, that statute does not confer upon him rights greater than those of a licensed broker, and a licensed broker may not recover a commission based on a co-brokerage agreement involving an unlicensed co-broker (see Real Property Law § 442 and § 442-d;  and see Siegel v. Fippinger, Inc., 264 App.Div. 203, 204, 34 N.Y.S.2d 894 [1942];  Meltzer v. Crescent Leaseholds, Ltd., 315 F.Supp. 142 [S.D.N.Y.1970], affd. 442 F.2d 293 [1971] ).   The intent of the licensing requirement under the Real Property Law, i.e., “to protect the public from inept, inexperienced, or dishonest persons who might perpetrate or aid in the perpetration of fraud” (Kavian v. Vernah Homes Co., 19 A.D.3d 649, 650, 799 N.Y.S.2d 75 [2005] ), would be undermined if such co-brokerage agreements were enforceable, even in part.