We agree with the motion court that the consideration for the contract at issue — proprietary information regarding the premises — was given prior to the execution of the agreement. Since the past consideration is not expressed in the agreement, and since "[i]n the absence of a writing that can be understood without dependence upon extrinsic evidence and that clearly describes the consideration, a promise derived from past consideration is simply not actionable" ( Clark v. Bank of N.Y., 185 A.D.2d 138, 140-141, appeal withdrawn 81 N.Y.2d 760; General Obligations Law § 5-1105), the court properly dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.