Absent evidence that the parties ever agreed to share profits, losses or clients, or to otherwise commingle their law practices, the motion court correctly found only a traditional office sharing arrangement, not a joint venture ( see, Baytree Assocs. v. Forster, 240 A.D.2d 305, 306, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 810; Village of Wellsville v. Village of Andover, 231 A.D.2d 870). Any agreement to hold defendants liable for sharing the expenses under the lease that only plaintiff signed is unenforceable, there being no writing sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703). Since there was no binding contract, plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract was properly dismissed. In any event, plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence tending to show any unlawful business purpose or malice on the part of the defendants on that claim ( see, Nassau Diagnostic Imaging Radiation Oncology Assocs. v. Winthrop-University Hosp., 197 A.D.2d 563, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 756).
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe JJ.