Is this legal?? Sale at 99 John Street #1003

I am not giving legal advice, but it seems questionable to me. My guess is that the broker and seller agreed to a low commission and feel there isn't enough to split with a buyer's broker.

I come across these situations from time to time in Harlem. If you want a buyer's broker you would need to pay their commission.

It would be a violation of REBNY rules to not allow a buyer-broker into a deal once it is listed in MLS. Am I wrong?

I don't have any specifics on this particular listing because I don't have clients who are right for it.

I do think there's a difference between the buyer having representation and the seller paying for that representation by offering a co-broke. William B. May, as far as I know, is not a REBNY member firm, so they are not bound by REBNY agreements to offer a co-broke.

OTOH, if you as a buyer are willing to pay your buyer's broker ... I'm with 30 years ... I can't give legal advice but generally the NY Department of State wants consumers to be happy.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

This may be the answer to my query, from the REBNY website. Note the last sentence.

"REBNY's Residential Listing Service (RLS) is a sharing of listings available to all REBNY firms that are members of the Residential Brokerage Division and non-member firms that receive revenue from the residential sale or rental of residential property located in the jurisdictions authorized by the Residential Board of Directors. This system mandates that within 24 hours of being engaged as an Exclusive Agent, every RLS member must initiate an offer of co-brokerage of all exclusive sale or rental listings located in the said jurisdictions to every other member of the RLS system who has expressed in writing an interest in receiving such listings, unless directed not to do so by the seller."

Even if this broker is not a Rebny member he still has to follow NYC and NYS laws, doesn't he?
It seems a clear violation, see this page here: https://www.dos.ny.gov/cnsl/dualagcy.html

" As a principal in a real estate transaction, you should always know that you HAVE THE RIGHT to be represented by an agent who is loyal only to you throughout the entire transaction. Your agent's fiduciary duties to you need never be compromised."

So if the seller is ... worried about paying a commission to the buyer's broker and the agent is willing to do this kind of "arrangement" he cannot deny the buyer to bring his own broker as it is clearly advertised in the listing. If he doesn't want to pay a buyer's broker commission that's another deal but it doesn't say that.

That's probably what is meant. Seller won't pay.

Regardless of what is "meant" I think any broker putting in writing that potential purchasers can not have their own representation is looking for trouble.

He should have written that buyers will be responsible for paying the fee to their own broker.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

Poof!