ROSS v. WU

The binder for the $800,000 all-cash sale of defendant Sam Wu's building was not a sufficient memorandum under the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703; see RAJ Acquisition Corp. v. Atamanuk, 272 AD2d 164) in that it failed to identify the corporate seller ( see Bhutta Realty Corp. v. Sangetti, 165 AD2d 852). Atai v. Dogwood Realty of N.Y., Inc. ( 24 AD3d 695) and Kursh v. Verderame ( 87 AD2d 803, lv denied 57 NY2d 608), upon which plaintiff relies, are factually distinguishable. In addition, the further negotiations and exchange of drafts here showed that there was never a meeting of the minds on all essential terms ( see e.g. Yenom Corp. v. 155 Wooster St. Inc., 23 AD3d 259; Frankel v. Ford Leasing Dev. Co., 7 AD3d 757).

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address plaintiff's other contentions.