Justice Shlomo Hagler
Hunter Realty moved for summary judgment on its complaint against A.O. Textiles. A.O. argued factual questions existed precluding summary judgment. Siegel, a Hunter broker, entered into an exclusive agreement with A.O.’s president, Kim, to secure new space to lease for A.O. as its lease was set to expire April 2009. The agreement provided that A.O. was to refer all inquiries, proposals and offers to Hunter, including those from other brokers. After Hunter failed to secure a space for A.O. that met its requirements, A.O. began working with broker Adams & Co. who secured a space and A.O. signed a seven year lease. Hunter informed Kim it would be looking to either the landlord or A.O. for its compensation, then sued for breach of contract, among other things. Kim noted that despite the agreement he did not believe he had to work exclusively with Hunter, claiming he was unsatisfied with Hunter’s work. The court found the agreement was unambiguous requiring A.O. to work exclusively through Hunter to secure a new space until the agreement’s expiration. It ruled the result of A.O.’s actions was that it breached the agreement, entitling Hunter to summary judgment on such breach, and referring the matter of damages to a referee.
