Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the brokerage agreement at issue conferred upon the plaintiff an exclusive right to sell, entitling it to receive a commission for any sale within the term of the agreement whether or not the plaintiff brought about the sale (see, Moore Bowles v Cottrone Dev. Co., 132 A.D.2d 975; Hess v Kruse, 131 A.D.2d 545, 546). Since the defendant Yerganian admitted he had authority to enter brokerage agreements on behalf of the defendant corporation, the corporation's failure to offer any evidence on the limited nature of the agency rendered summary judgment appropriate (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563-564; Federated Adj. Co. v Sobie, 90 A.D.2d 806). Finally, the defendants failed to raise any issue concerning proof of the plaintiff's brokerage license before the Supreme Court and as a result, any defense with regard to that issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Real Property Law § 442-d; Lister Elec. v Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst, 108 A.D.2d 731, 733; Schoonmaker v State of New York, 94 A.D.2d 741). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.