The cause of action alleging an oral stock purchase agreement was properly dismissed as barred by the Statute of Frauds (UCC 8-319; see, Dillon v Peretti, 176 A.D.2d 497), there being no issues of fact warranting possible application of the doctrines of promissory estoppel and partial performance. Assuming that plaintiff was promised an equity interest in defendant corporation in exchange for his services on its behalf, he suffered no unconscionable injury as evidenced by the substantial weekly compensation he received ( see, Ginsberg v Fairfield-Noble Corp., 81 A.D.2d 318). Nor were his services "`unequivocally referable'" to the promise ( Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664), as evidenced by his admission that no money had ever been applied toward the purchase of the equity interest. Plaintiff's remaining causes of action were properly dismissed since proof of the oral contract, barred by the Statute of Frauds, would be necessary to recover under each of them ( see, Bernbach v Camp Wah-nee, 176 A.D.2d 304; Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 77 A.D.2d 831, affd 54 N.Y.2d 883).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.