38 N.Y.2d 978 (1976)
A real estate broker can recover the reasonable value of their services (quantum meruit) even if there’s no explicit agreement on commission, and real estate board’s recommended rates can be considered as evidence of reasonable value.
Summary
Williams Real Estate Co. sued Solow Development Corp. for commissions allegedly earned as the procuring cause of three leases with Avon Products in the Solow Building. Cushman & Wakefield also sued Solow for breach of contract as the exclusive renting and management agent. The jury found for Williams on all three leases based on quantum meruit, and for Cushman & Wakefield for wrongful termination and half commissions on the first two Avon leases. The key issue revolved around the valuation of Williams’ services in the absence of a commission agreement and the use of real estate board rates as evidence of reasonable value. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the jury could consider the board rates as evidence of reasonable value, especially since Solow’s attorney stipulated to receiving the real estate board recommended rates into evidence.
Facts
Avon Products leased space in the Solow Building. Williams claimed to be the procuring cause for all three leases and sought commissions from Solow. Solow acknowledged Williams’ involvement in the first two leases but denied it for the third. Cushman & Wakefield, the exclusive renting and management agent, also sought commissions, including half commissions for the leases procured by other brokers (Williams). Solow terminated the agreement with Cushman & Wakefield, leading to a breach of contract claim.
Procedural History
Williams sued Solow for commissions. Cushman & Wakefield sued Solow for breach of contract. The cases were consolidated. The jury found in favor of Williams for all three leases based on the reasonable value of services and for Cushman & Wakefield on both claims. The Appellate Division affirmed except for the award to Williams on the third lease, which was reduced. Solow appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the jury’s finding that Williams was the procuring cause of the third lease was a question of fact properly submitted to the jury.
2. Whether it was proper for the trial court to allow the jury to consider the real estate board’s schedule of recommended rates as evidence of the reasonable value of Williams’ services in a quantum meruit claim.
Holding
1. Yes, because whether Williams was a procuring cause of the third lease was a question of fact properly submitted to the jury.
2. Yes, because the real estate board schedule of recommended rates could be considered as some evidence of reasonable value but was not binding.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the question of whether Williams was the procuring cause of the third lease was a factual one, properly submitted to the jury. Regarding the real estate board rates, the court noted that Solow’s attorney stipulated to the receipt of the real estate board recommended rates into evidence. Moreover, Solow’s own expert testified that said rates were used as an upper guideline in these negotiations, as well as in others in the industry. Therefore, Solow could not complain about the court’s charge that the jury could consider the real estate board schedule of recommended rates as some evidence of reasonable value but was not binding. The court emphasized that the jury’s award to Williams was based on quantum meruit (the reasonable value of services) since the jury found no agreement on commissions. The court stated, “On the case in quantum meruit, the court charged, inter alia, that the real estate board schedule of recommended rates could be considered as some evidence of reasonable value but, was not binding.” The court affirmed the order, effectively allowing the jury to consider industry standards when determining the value of the broker’s services.