The IAS Court properly granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint since the record fails to establish the existence of an enforceable storage contract, any purported oral modification of which would be barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 15-301; see, Columbia Broadcasting Sys. v Roskin Distribs., 31 A.D.2d 22, 25, affd 28 N.Y.2d 559). Moreover, the causes of action alleged are barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitations (CPLR 206, 214).
The second verified complaint, which sought to add seven new causes of action pertaining to events which allegedly occurred after service of the original complaint, was properly designated a supplemental complaint (CPLR 3025 [b]). Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment thereon was properly denied since defendants promptly rejected the pleading in light of plaintiff's failure to obtain prior leave of court or to obtain a court order compelling them to accept service (CPLR 3025 [b]; see, Carp v Marcus, 105 A.D.2d 584).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.