DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contention, the oral promise of payment made by the defendant's agent to the plaintiff was not barred by the statute of frauds. The promise represented an independent duty of payment, irrespective of the liability of the principal debtor, and was based upon new consideration (see Martin Roofing v. Goldstein, 60 N.Y.2d 262, cert denied 466 U.S. 905; Kramer v. Harrington Wells Rhodes, 275 A.D.2d 302; Karl Ehmer Forest Hills Corp. v. Gonzalez, 159 A.D.2d 613).
The defendants' remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.