In this action alleging breach of a contract to purchase real property, the motion court properly found that a letter from plaintiff's counsel to defendant's counsel and a letter from defendant's counsel to plaintiff did not constitute writings sufficient to take the alleged agreement out of the Statute of Frauds, since the relied upon writings failed to state all the material terms of a complete agreement (see,Generas v. Hotel des Artistes, 117 A.D.2d 563, 566, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 606). Moreover, the letters themselves reveal that the parties had not intended to be bound until a further formal contract was negotiated and executed (see, Kniffen v. Kniffen, 223 A.D.2d 686; Chan v. Bay Ridge Park Hill Realty Co., supra; O'Brien v. West, 199 A.D.2d 369, 371).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.