Opinion
October 1, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New, York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
The group of writings that plaintiff offers as an enforceable contract does not adequately identify and describe the alleged contract's subject matter or state its other essential terms ( see, DeRosis v. Kaufman, 219 A.D.2d 376, 379). The writings, even when considered in light of all of the admitted facts and surrounding circumstances ( see, Fox Co. v. Kaufman Org., 74 N.Y.2d 136, 140-141), are not the equivalent of a valid agreement to modify and extend the duration of the purchase offer made plaintiff. That offer had, by its own terms, expired months before the writings upon which plaintiff relies were generated. Accordingly, the motion court correctly rejected plaintiff's argument that the original restrictions on the offer are void ( see, e.g., O'Neill v. Atlantic Sec. Guards, 250 A.D.2d 493). Given this conclusion, it is unnecessary to decide whether the complaint is time-barred. We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Lerner, P.J., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.