WALENTAS v. 35-45 FRONT STREET CO

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The statute of frauds ( see General Obligations Law § 5-703) provides that "[a] contract to devise real property . . . is void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged there with, or by his [or her] lawfully authorized agent." To satisfy the statute of frauds, a memorandum evidencing a contract and subscribed by the party to be charged must designate the parties, identify and describe the subject matter, and state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement ( see Rahimzadeh v. M.A.C. Assoc., 304 AD2d 636; Simmonds v. Marshall, 292 AD2d 592; Cohen v. Swenson, 140 AD2d 407; Schuman v. Strauss, 139 AD2d 502; Sheehan v. Culotta, 99 AD2d 544). Here, the plaintiff failed to produce such a writing and therefore his complaint was properly dismissed.

The plaintiff's remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review.