In Priestley v. Buildmaster Housing Corp., 28 AD2d 707 (2d Dept 1967) the Second Department disagreed with a trial court's jury instruction and granted a new trial because the trial court "misrepresented a basic element of the law of broker-employer, namely, that where a broker is employed to sell property at a specific price and is unsuccessful, and the owner later begins or resumes negotiations with the broker's prospect in good faith and a sale results, then the broker is not entitled to a commission" (Id. at 708). The Second Department found that, "there was sufficient evidence of intervening factors or circumstances between the initial unsuccessful negotiations (assuming there were negotiations) and that sale upon which the jury could find that [seller] acted in good faith in resuming negotiations with someone who may, in fact, have been brought to its attention by plaintiff" (Id.)