SANDS v. GE-RAY FABRICS, INC

The various writings submitted by plaintiffs and the conduct of the parties are as fully consistent with a contract terminable at will, as claimed by defendant, as with a contract not to be performed within one year, as claimed by plaintiffs, and thus insufficient to overcome the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]) either on the theory of combined writings (see, Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 N.Y.2d 372, 379), or part performance (see, Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664).

Nor does the mere fact that plaintiffs voluntarily expended time and money obtaining customers for defendant entitle them to recovery on a theory of estoppel (see, Ginsberg v Fairfield-Noble Corp., 81 A.D.2d 318, 321), or quantum meruit (Jandous Elec. Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 88 A.D.2d 821, affd 57 N.Y.2d 848), absent evidence of any reasonable expectation of compensation other than sales commissions, which plaintiffs in fact received.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.