Opinion
April 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
The various writings submitted by plaintiffs and the conduct of the parties are as fully consistent with a contract terminable at will, as claimed by defendant, as with a contract not to be performed within one year, as claimed by plaintiffs, and thus insufficient to overcome the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]) either on the theory of combined writings (see, Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 N.Y.2d 372, 379), or part performance (see, Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664).
Nor does the mere fact that plaintiffs voluntarily expended time and money obtaining customers for defendant entitle them to recovery on a theory of estoppel (see, Ginsberg v Fairfield-Noble Corp., 81 A.D.2d 318, 321), or quantum meruit (Jandous Elec. Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 88 A.D.2d 821, affd 57 N.Y.2d 848), absent evidence of any reasonable expectation of compensation other than sales commissions, which plaintiffs in fact received.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.