Opinion
April 4, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff seeks specific performance of a purported contract for the sale of a building owned by the defendant based on the following notes on a restaurant business card:
"36-01 May 12, 1986 "43 Ave. LIC NYC 600,000 Sale price tenant upstairs 3 years to go: 1.50 sq. ft. "SS 2 years 4.50 per sq. ft. PS." The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the writing failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.We find that the writing does not satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703) and the complaint was properly dismissed. A memorandum which is purportedly evidence of a contract for the sale of real property "must state the entire agreement with such certainty that the substance thereof will appear from the writing alone. It must designate the parties, identify and describe the subject matter, and state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement" (Tamir v. Greenberg, 119 A.D.2d 665, 666, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 607, citing Aceste v. Wiebusch, 74 A.D.2d 810). Even if we were to accept the plaintiff's argument that the parties and property were sufficiently identified, the fatal flaw in the writing is that there is no evidence on its face that the parties actually reached an agreement. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.