Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the appellant's motion which were to dismiss the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth causes of action in the complaint are granted, and those causes of action are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.
The agreement between the parties was duly terminated by the appellant pursuant to a provision therein allowing for termination upon 30 days notice by either party ( see, Shi-Young Moon v. Southside Hosp., 248 A.D.2d 523; Center Green v. Boehm, 247 A.D.2d 869; Big Apple Car v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 109). In addition, the Supreme Court erred in applying the exception to the parol evidence rule for the partial performance of an oral modification ( see, Anostario v. Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662; Burns v. McCormick, 233 N.Y. 230, 232; Cooper v. Schube, 86 A.D.2d 62, affd 57 N.Y.2d 1016).
Moreover, the plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to sustain a cause of action based upon fraud ( see, Shi-Young Moon v. Southside Hosp., supra; Hoydal v. City of New York, 154 A.D.2d 345, 346).
Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.