Per Curiam
Petitioner Miranda, a real estate broker, appealed from a judgment dismissing the complaint for $10,000 in commissions for services rendered in connection with sale of Aliotta’s house. Miranda entered into a “dual agency” agreement with buyers for the purchase of a house. She contacted Aliotta and showed buyers the house with his consent and negotiated the sale. The court noted while Miranda advised Aliotta she expected him to pay her fee, he refused to execute the dual agency disclosure form. The Civil Court dismissed the complaint noting Aliotta’s internet advertisement specifically indicated he had no intent to hire an agent, finding an alleged oral agreement was insufficient. The unanimous panel reversed finding the contract of sale acknowledged that Miranda was the sole broker in the transaction. Also, while the contract stated seller would pay broker commissions earned under a separate agreement between seller and broker, it did not require the agreement to be written. Thus, the panel stated an oral agreement to pay a real estate broker, whether express or implied, was enforceable, finding contract’s language constituted an admission that Miranda was due a broker’s fee from Aliotta. It found the $10,000 commission reasonable.
