A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's findings that the transaction that plaintiff attempted to bring about was abandoned; that the transaction subsequently concluded by defendant landlord with the new tenant was fundamentally different; that plaintiff did not play a significant role in the subsequent transaction and was not a procuring cause thereof; and that plaintiff therefore is not entitled to a commission even though the landlord and new tenant were introduced as a result of its efforts ( see Cushman Wakefield v. 214 E. 49th St. Corp., 218 A.D.2d 464, 467-468, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 816). We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other claims, including that the subsequent transaction was part of a fraudulent scheme to deprive it of a commission.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.