▶ Video explainer coming soon
The Appellate Division said no. Corcoran did not explain why this evidence could not have been gathered earlier, before the original ruling. Because that basic requirement wasn't met, the court didn't even need to decide whether the new statement would have changed the outcome. The lower court's decision to deny reopening the case was upheld. A separate argument the seller raised for the first time on appeal was also rejected, since it hadn't been raised earlier in the case.
NRT New York, doing business as The Corcoran Group, and another company called Bespoke were hired as co-brokers to sell a property in Sagaponack. Their agreement said they could still earn a commission after it ended, but only if they had 'presented' the property to the buyer during the agreement and gave the seller a list of prospective buyers within 15 days after termination. After the agreement ended, the seller sold the property to a buyer. Bespoke got a $320,000 fee through a separate oral deal. Corcoran got nothing. Corcoran sued for breach of contract. The court sided with the seller, finding no proof the property was presented to the buyer in time, or that the required buyer list was ever given.
Corcoran then asked the court to undo that ruling, pointing to a new sworn statement from Bespoke's principal as 'newly discovered evidence.' Under New York law, a party can reopen a case this way only if the evidence truly could not have been found earlier, even with due diligence, meaning reasonable effort to investigate. The question was whether this new statement met that strict test.
This case shows courts hold parties to a high bar when asking to reopen a final decision. Simply having a new piece of evidence isn't enough. You must show it couldn't have been found sooner with reasonable effort. For real estate brokers, it also highlights how strictly courts read commission and 'tail period' clauses in listing agreements.
Talk to a licensed real estate lawyer in New York.