DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff, former counsel to defendant Kathleen Lindenman, seeks to enforce an alleged oral promise made by Lindenman's brother, the codefendant Joseph Rudy, to pay for his sister's legal representation. The Supreme Court properly concluded that such a claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds, which requires that an agreement to answer for the debt of another must be in writing (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][2]). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, Rudy's alleged partial performance, i.e., two payments totaling $3,000, was not unequivocally referable to any alleged agreement between these two parties, and thus was insufficient to remove the alleged agreement from the Statute of Frauds (see, A. Aversa Brokerage v. Honig Ins. Agency, 249 A.D.2d 345; Rosencheck v. Calcam Assocs., 233 A.D.2d 553).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, FLORIO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.