January/June, 2026 – The Honorable Frank A. Tinari of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County has dismissed a pair of brokers’ claims based on alleged “co-brokerage agreements”, in Simon Harrison Real Estate, LLC v. 20 Forest Road LLC, Suffolk Index No. 610349/2024 (Jan. 7, 2026), and Nest Seekers LLC v. Silberstein, Index No. 207/2022 (June 8, 2026).  These cases illustrate various difficulties faced by purported “co-brokers” who assert claims directly against the buyers and sellers, rather than against the listing agents with whom they allegedly have a co-brokerage agreement.

In the first case, which involved a North Haven property, the plaintiff, Simon Harrison Real Estate, brought an action directly against the seller in which it claimed to have earned a share of a commission for introducing the seller to a buyer whose contract was terminated before closing.  The seller did not have any agreement with Simon Harrison, which was not the listing agent.  Instead, the seller had entered into an “Exclusive Right to Sell” agreement with another listing broker, Saunders & Associates.  After the property was later sold to a different buyer with whom Simon Harrison had no involvement, Simon Harrison sued the seller directly, claiming that it was entitled to a share of the commission for introducing the seller to the first buyer.  Simon Harrison’s claim was based on a “universal” co-brokerage agreement between Simon Harrison and Saunders, and on other “implied contract” theories.

When the seller, represented by EHADP, moved for summary judgment, the court dismissed Simon Harrison’s claims, primarily on two grounds.   First, the court agreed with the seller that it had “no contract with [Simon Harrison], implied or express,” and the only commission agreement entered into by the seller was the “ERS” with Saunders.   Second, the court agreed that the ERS provided that a commission was “payable ONLY if, as and when title passes,” and it undisputed that title did not pass as between the buyer that Simon Harrison introduced to the seller.  The court also rejected Simon Harrison’s alternative theories based on “quantum meruit,” “unjust enrichment,” and implied contract.

In the second case, which involved Bridgehampton property, the plaintiff, Nest Seekers International, also claimed to be entitled to a real estate brokerage commission by allegedly procuring the eventual buyers of the property.  Nest Seekers sued not only the listing brokers on the transaction but the buyers themselves, claiming “tortious interference” with Nest Seekers’ alleged co-brokerage agreement with the listing broker.  When the buyers, represented by EHADP, moved for summary judgment, the court dismissed the complaint against them.   The court concluded that the buyers had shown “that they did not tortiously interfere with a brokerage agreement,” and, despite Nest Seekers’ claim, “no co-brokerage agreement was ever produced.”   To the extent Nest Seekers’ was relying on a “universal” co-brokerage agreement applicable through the multiple listing service (MLS), the court found no evidence that the buyers had knowledge of that agreement so as to support a claim for tortious interference.