We agree with the motion court that the alleged oral contract was not capable of performance within one year (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; see, D N Boening v Kirsch Beuerages, 63 N.Y.2d 449, 456), and that plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence of part performance as would remove the alleged contract from the Statute of Frauds ( see, Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664). Plaintiffs' cause of action for quantum meruit is also without merit given their failure to adequately document the services they allegedly performed for defendants or, assuming that performance of such services could be documented, establish the reasonable value of those services ( see, Geraldi v. Melamid, 212 A.D.2d 575, 576). As the complaint lacks merit, the action was properly dismissed ( see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v. Rogers Wells, 64 N.Y.2d 904).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.