In Galbreath-Ruffin Corp. v. 40th & 3rd Corp., 19 NY2d 354, 362-363, 227 N.E.2d 30, 280 N.Y.S.2d 126 (1967), the plaintiff was a licensed brokerage corporation at all times when services were rendered to the defendant, and was affiliated with another properly licensed brokerage corporation. Both of the individuals who provided brokerage serves on behalf of the plaintiff corporation were also licensed brokers. One of those individuals, the plaintiff's vice president, was only licensed to provide brokerage services on behalf of plaintiff's affiliate and technically should not have provided brokerage services on behalf of the plaintiff until he procured an additional license by paying the fee. In holding that his recovery was not barred under the Real Property Law, the court noted that the lack of a license was purely a revenue matter and that because he already had been approved to act as a broker contemporaneously the license would have been issued pro forma. Id.at 363-364.