Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against Michael Schreiber and Royal Farms, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
Upon a review of the record, we find no evidence of a contractual relationship, promise, or agreement between the broker and the appellants-buyers under which the broker might claim a commission from them regarding the purchase of a commercial building in Brooklyn (see, Lee v. Woodward, 259 N.Y. 149, 150; Egan Real Estate v. McGraw, 40 A.D.2d 299, 303; cf., Sheppard Intl. v. Vogel, 147 A.D.2d 351; Interactive Props. v Doyle Dane Bernbach, 125 A.D.2d 265, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 613). Thus, even assuming, as we must on this summary judgment motion, that the buyers concealed their interest in the property from the broker and then secretly negotiated for and purchased that property from the owner (see, e.g., Museums at Stony Brook v Village of Patchogue Fire Dept., 146 A.D.2d 572) the buyers proved their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It is undisputed that the broker, at most, merely provided information about the building after the defendant Michael Schreiber had spotted it from the roof of another building he was being shown by the plaintiff's representatives. This was clearly insufficient proof that the broker was the procuring cause of the sale, an essential component of an action to recover a broker's commission (Greene v. Hellman, 51 N.Y.2d 197, 205-206; Getreu v. Lebowitz, 162 A.D.2d 585).
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, Houlihan-Parnes v. Citibank, 49 N.Y.2d 761; Pelton Co. v. Moundsville Shopping Plaza, 173 A.D.2d 201). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.