The evidence, fairly considered, supports the trial court's findings that, although plaintiff introduced defendants to the lending bank and arranged a meeting between them, the loan proposals it procured were not equivalent to the loan prescribed by defendants (see, Donald Zucker Co. v. Lieberman, 183 A.D.2d 553, 554, citing Brown v. Thompson Hill Dev. Corp., 248 N.Y. 290, 292) and, thus, its right to a commission never accrued (see, Cushman Wakefield v. 214 E. 49thSt. Corp., 218 A.D.2d 464, 466, appeal dismissed, 88 N.Y.2d 951, appeal denied, 88 N.Y.2d 816). Plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the loan that defendants eventually received, which was on substantially better terms and part of a package put together by a financing group other than the one that had formulated the prior loan proposal rejected by defendants (see, Kenneth D. Laub Co. v. 101 Park Ave. Assocs., 162 A.D.2d 294, 296; Thomas P. Reilly Co. v. Rockefeller Ctr. Mgt. Corp., 223 A.D.2d 477).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.