Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the letter dated July 1, 2002, which the plaintiff and the defendant Joan Prehay signed, failed to describe the real property owned by Prehay with the degree of certainty necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds ( see General Obligations Law § 5-703; Cohen v. Swenson, 140 AD2d 407; J J Bldrs. Devs. v. D'Alesio Sons, 158 AD2d 674). The letter referred only to "the house" at a certain corner and made no reference to real property or land. Moreover, no property street address is stated in the letter, nor did it set forth dimensions, acreage, metes and bounds, or lot number ( cf. Hackal v. Adler, 234 AD2d 341). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.