The statute of frauds prohibits, inter alia, the lease of real property for a period of more than one year without a written contract (see General Obligations Law § 5–703[2] ). While the statute of frauds permits courts of equity to compel specific performance of an otherwise prohibited agreement in cases of part performance (see General Obligations Law § 5–703[4] ), the claimed partial performance must be "unequivocally referable" to the alleged agreement ( Anostario v. Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664, 463 N.Y.S.2d 409, 450 N.E.2d 215 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 A.D.3d 768, 769, 854 N.Y.S.2d 773 ). It is insufficient that the alleged agreement gives significance to a party's actions.

"'Unequivocally referable' conduct is conduct which is 'inconsistent with any other explanation.'" Id. (quoting 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 854 N.Y.S.2d 773, 50 A.D.3d 768, 769 (App. Div. 2008)). "When analyzing part performance for potential invocation of equitable principles, courts should only consider the actions and detrimental reliance of the party seeking enforcement of the contract."

'Unequivocally referable' conduct is conduct which is 'inconsistent with any other explanation.'" Id. (quoting 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 A.D.3d 768, 769 (2d Dep't 2008)). "When analyzing part performance for potential invocation of equitable principles, courts should only consider the actions and detrimental reliance of the party seeking enforcement of the contract." Post Hill, LLC, 122 A.D.3d at 1128 (internal citations omitted).

“ ‘Unequivocally referable’ conduct is conduct which is ‘inconsistent with any other explanation.’ ” Barretti v. Detore, 95 A.D.3d 803, 944 N.Y.S.2d 166, 169 (2012) (quoting 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 A.D.3d 768, 854 N.Y.S.2d 773, 774 (2008)). “Where the possibility of other reasons for the conduct exists, the performance is equivocal.”

ee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v. Aegis Group, 93 N.Y.2d at 235, 689 N.Y.S.2d 674, 711 N.E.2d 953 ), and not every action undertaken by a party will be sufficient to defeat a statute of frauds defense. Rather, as the case law makes clear, "a party's partial performance of an alleged oral contract will be deemed sufficient to take such contract out of the statute of frauds only if it can be demonstrated that the acts constituting partial performance are unequivocally referable to said contract" (Sivos v. Eppich, 78 A.D.3d at 1361, 911 N.Y.S.2d 232 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Bowers v. Hurley, 134 A.D.3d 1191, 1193, 21 N.Y.S.3d 743 [2015] ). Unequivocally referable conduct must do more than lend " significance to" or "provide[ ] a possible motivation for [a party's] actions" (Anostario v. Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664, 463 N.Y.S.2d 409, 450 N.E.2d 215 [1983] ); such conduct must be "inconsistent with any other explanation" for the actions undertaken (745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 A.D.3d 768, 769, 854 N.Y.S.2d 773 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ) or "unintelligible or at least extraordinary, explainable only with reference to the oral agreement" (Anostario v. Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d at 664, 463 N.Y.S.2d 409, 450 N.E.2d 215 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). Thus, a party may "lose the benefit of the defense ... or waive its protection, by inducing or permitting without remonstrance another party to the agreement to do acts, pursuant to and in reliance upon the agreement, to such an extent and so substantial in quality as to irremediably alter the situation and make the interposition of the statute against performance a fraud" (Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v. Aegis Group, 93 N.Y.2d at 235, 689 N.Y.S.2d 674, 711 N.E.2d 953 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted] ).

While the statute of frauds empowers courts of equity to compel specific performance of agreements in cases of part performance ( seeGeneral Obligations Law § 5–703 [4] ), the claimed partial performance “must be unequivocally referable to the agreement” (Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v. Aegis Group, 93 N.Y.2d 229, 235, 689 N.Y.S.2d 674, 711 N.E.2d 953). Unequivocally referable conduct is conduct that “is inconsistent with any other explanation” (Richardson & Lucas, Inc. v. New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., 304 A.D.2d 462, 463, 758 N.Y.S.2d 321; see Barretti v. Detore, 95 A.D.3d 803, 806, 944 N.Y.S.2d 166; 745 Nostrand Retail, Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 A.D.3d 768, 769, 854 N.Y.S.2d 773).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed the dismissal of so much of the second cause of action as was based upon the negotiation of the Whole Foods lease and the related pension plan ( see MP Innovations, Inc. v. Atlantic Horizon Intl., Inc., 72 A.D.3d 571, 899 N.Y.S.2d 213). Further, the part-performance exception to the statute of frauds did not apply ( see Anostario v. Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664, 463 N.Y.S.2d 409, 450 N.E.2d 215;Singh v. Kur, 64 A.D.3d 697, 698, 883 N.Y.S.2d 288;745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 A.D.3d 768, 769, 854 N.Y.S.2d 773;Carey & Assoc. v. Ernst, 27 A.D.3d 261, 263, 810 N.Y.S.2d 475). The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

An agreement which violates the statute of frauds may nonetheless be enforceable “where there has been part performance ‘unequivocally referable’ to the contract by the party seeking to enforce the agreement” ( Luft v. Luft, 52 A.D.3d 479, 481, 859 N.Y.S.2d 694, quoting Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v. Aegis Group, 93 N.Y.2d 229, 235, 689 N.Y.S.2d 674, 711 N.E.2d 953;seeGeneral Obligations Law § 5–703[4]; Pinkava v. Yurkiw, 64 A.D.3d 690, 692, 882 N.Y.S.2d 687). “ ‘Unequivocally referable’ conduct is conduct which is ‘inconsistent with any other explanation’ ” ( 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 A.D.3d 768, 769, 854 N.Y.S.2d 773, quoting Richardson & Lucas, Inc. v. New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., 304 A.D.2d 462, 463, 758 N.Y.S.2d 321). Here, in his complaint in Action No. 1, and in opposition to CML's motion, Barretti failed to allege acts of partial performance that were unequivocally referable to the alleged mortgage agreement sufficient to obviate the need for a writing.

Nor did tenant raise a factual issue sufficient to warrant a trial on the equitable doctrine of part performance. There is no evidence in the record of conduct by tenant which is unequivocally referable to the purported 10–year lease and inconsistent with any other explanation ( see 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 AD3d 768 [2008] ). Given the unenforceability of the term sheet, and landlord's uncontroverted showing that the monthly tenancy was properly terminated, landlord was properly awarded summary judgment of possession.

The plaintiff submitted an affidavit stating that he delivered the sum of $300,000 in cash to the individual defendants' husbands in a brown paper bag. However, the alleged delivery of this money was not "unequivocally referable" to the alleged contract, such as to constitute part performance ( see 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 AD3d 768, 769; Tikvah Realty, LLC v Schwartz, 43 AD3d 909). The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the shareholder derivative cause of action asserted on behalf of Star-Bright, as the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether he ever acquired any stock in Star-Bright ( see Business Corporation Law § 626 [b]; see also Independent Inv. Protective League v Time, Inc., 50 NY2d 259, 263).