Opinion
May 9, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the plaintiff's present contentions, the Supreme Court, Putnam County, properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to the Statute of Frauds (see, General Obligations Law § 5-703), as the letters and other documents submitted by the plaintiff failed to set forth all of the essential and material terms for a valid agreement among the parties for the conveyance of interests in real property (see, Tetz v Dexter, 133 A.D.2d 79; Tamir v Greenberg, 119 A.D.2d 665, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 607; Villano v G C Homes, 46 A.D.2d 907, appeal dismissed 36 N.Y.2d 918, lv dismissed 40 N.Y.2d 959). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish any partial performance which was unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement (see, e.g., Jonestown Place Corp. v 153 W. 33rd St. Corp., 53 N.Y.2d 847; Wilson v La Van, 22 N.Y.2d 131; Korff v Pica Graphics, 121 A.D.2d 511; Christou v Christou, 109 A.D.2d 1058, affd 65 N.Y.2d 853), nor did he adduce sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to his claim that the defendants should be estopped from relying upon the Statute of Frauds as a defense (see, North Am. Co. for Life Health Ins. v Pennington, 132 A.D.2d 972; Towpash v Towpash, 119 A.D.2d 567). Weinstein, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.