Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The February 25, 1994, letter agreement acknowledged the right of the plaintiff (hereinafter the broker) to a commission in the event that a satisfactory subleasing deal was reached between the defendant and Pearl Art Craft Discount Center (hereinafter Pearl Art) with regard to a certain store. We hold that, as a matter of law, the letter agreement did not confer upon the broker an exclusive agency or an exclusive right to negotiate with all other potential sublessors on the defendant's behalf ( see, Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 203 A.D.2d 517; see also, Lanstar Intl. Realty v. New York News, 206 A.D.2d 411; cf, Rachmani Corp. v. 9 E. 96th St. Apt. Corp., 211 A.D.2d 262; see generally, 2 Warren's Weed New York Real Property, Brokers, § 3.02 [2], [3] [4th ed]). Rather, by its very terms the agreement only served to provide for a commission in the event that Pearl Art and the defendant reached, a satisfactory deal, a contingency that did not occur. Inasmuch as no prospective exclusive relationship existed, the broker was not entitled to a commission as it was not the procuring cause of the deal that ultimately closed between the defendant and Pearl Paint Co. (hereinafter Pearl Paint.) ( see, Mollyann, Inc. v. Demetriades, 206 A.D.2d 415).
Even if the agreement had created an exclusive agency, the broker would not be entitled to a commission because the agreement provided only for a commission "at a rate to be negotiated". The agreement thus lacked an essential term as to the amount of the commission and constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree ( see, Cooper Sq. Realty v. A.R.S. Mgt., 181 A.D.2d 551, 552; accord, Hampton Realty v. Conklin, 220 A.D.2d 385; Paladino v. Brovitz, 170 A.D.2d 958; see also, Engle v. Lipcross Inc., 153 A.D.2d 603).
Finally, assuming that the letter agreement memorialized some kind of exclusive brokerage arrangement, the broker would still not be entitled to a commission inasmuch as it clearly abandoned the transaction ( see, Ryan v. Bettiol, 211 A.D.2d 844; Bob Howard, Inc. v. Baltis, 178 A.D.2d 740, 741; Thompson McKinnon Sec. v. Cioccolanti, 161 A.D.2d 523; Gabrielli v. Cornazzani, 135 A.D.2d 340, 342; Salzano v. Pellillo, 4 A.D.2d 789, 790).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.