The trial evidence established that plaintiff broker entered into an agreement with the Elo defendants to act as their "sole broker" for the purchase of the subject property and that plaintiff was in fact the procuring cause of the sale of that property to defendant Jack Elo. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to recover a commission for its services (see, Greene v. Hellman, 51 N.Y.2d 197, 205-206). The sued upon agreement was not unenforceable for its failure to specify the rate at which plaintiff's commission would be computed since it is clear that plaintiff did not agree to work without compensation and that the parties understood that plaintiff would be compensated at the prevailing, normal and accepted rates (see, Cobble Hill Nursing Home v. Henry Warren Corp., 74 N.Y.2d 475, 483, cert denied 498 U.S. 816; Kenneth D. Laub Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns Co., Inc., 262 A.D.2d 36). The trial court properly rejected defendants' attempt to evade their obligation to pay plaintiff a commission by endeavoring to characterize the transaction pursuant to which the subject property was acquired as nothing more than the assignment of a successful bid (see, Rachmani Corp. v. 9 E. 96th St. Apt. Corp., 211 A.D.2d 262, 269-270). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.