DECISION AND ORDER After an inquest, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Claimant is suing to recover a finder’s fee, based on the lease of a commercial office workspace in Brooklyn. Previously, there was an order striking the defendant’s answer due to the failure to provide court-ordered discovery. An inquest was held, with the participation of counsel for the defendant, on October 25, 2021. This decision follows. Claimant is an attorney with a general law practice focusing on criminal defense. In or around November of 2015, the claimant moved into office space located at 185 Wythe Street, Brooklyn New York. Defendant Acky Inc. (“Acky”) was the landlord. At that time, Acky was owned and/or operated by Jay Kim, a former client of the claimant. Claimant negotiated a rent with Mr. Kim directly. During the course of that negotiation, Mr. Kim advised the claimant that he was offering a ten-percent finder’s fee to anyone who found tenants for his co-working spaces. According to the claimant, Mr. Kim was anxious to rent as many offices in the space as he could, given that the space was a large industrial warehouse located in an old factory that had recently been converted over to use as a commercial office building. The factory space was known as the Brass Factory, a d/b/a of Acky, which was run by Mr. Kim’s daughter. In addition to the verbal agreement, the claimant was also provided by Mr. Kim with a list of proposed rents for various office spaces. The rental agreements for the various spaces, including the one rented by the claimant, were styled as membership agreements with rental terms that were either annual or month-to-month. In sum and substance, these membership agreements were leases for commercial office space and the Court is treating them as such. Along with the other tenants, claimant also received a weekly newsletter, allegedly prepared by Mr. Kim’s daughter. Claimant asserts that the newsletter essentially codified the agreement that Mr. Kim would pay a ten percent finder’s fee to any of his tenants who brought in other tenants to rent additional space. Specifically, the newsletter said “…refer a friend and earn 10 percent of their monthly fee for up to 12 months.” Claimant sought out other businesses and individuals to rent space in the factory. In the summer of 2017, Claimant found a company called East Side Effects, a motion picture production company owned by Alex Lemke, a friend of the claimant. Mr. Lemke’s company East Side Effects moved in around September of 2017 and, according to the claimant, agreed to a monthly rent of $6000.1 Approximately four months after he moved in, Mr. Lemke rented a second unit in the factory for which the claimant is also seeking compensation for. Claimant is seeking ten percent of the rent for the first unit at $6000 a month, for ten months, or $6000. For the second unit, claimant is seeking ten percent of the rent at $3900 a month, for six months, or $2340. In total, the claimant is seeking compensation in the amount of $8340. Based on the credible testimony of the claimant and the documents introduced into evidence at the inquest, the Court finds that the claimant is entitled to compensation from the defendant, but only as to the first unit rented by East Side Effects. Because Mr. Silverstein is a licensed attorney at law, his recovery of a finder’s fee is not precluded by Statute of Frauds, even if the Court declined to view the newsletter as an enforceable written agreement. (See General Obligations Law §507[a] [10]). The Court also agrees with the claimant that the newsletter set forth terms that were sufficiently detailed to create an enforceable agreement. However, the newsletter did not speak to the issue of whether the claimant would have a right to collect a referral fee from every subsequent lease or membership agreement that East Side Effects would ever enter into, regardless of the level of involvement of the claimant in negotiating or procuring said lease or membership agreement. Nor does the claimant claim that Mr. Kim addressed that specific issue in the course of his oral representations to the claimant. Given those undisputed facts, and the fact that there was an admitted delay of approximately four months between the time East Side Effects moved into the building and when it entered into a membership agreement for the second space, the Court finds that the claimant has not established a right additional compensation beyond the agreed upon initial finder’s fee. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to judgment in the amount of $6000. As set forth on the record on October 25, 2021, to the extent that the defendant made an application to vacate the default in this matter on the day of inquest, such application is denied without prejudice to make a written motion to vacate the default judgment authorized by this decision. For the reasons set forth herein, it is hereby HELD that the defendant is in default; and it is further ORDERED that judgment be entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $6,000 with interest from September 1, 2017. Dated: December 9, 2021
