The alleged oral agreement sued upon by plaintiff is one for a finder's fee and therefore unenforceable because General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (10) bars an oral agreement "to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating * * * a business opportunity" (Freedman v Chemical Constr. Corp., 43 N.Y.2d 260, 267, citing Minichiello v Royal Business Funds Corp., 18 N.Y.2d 521, 527).
Moreover, the alleged oral agreement was, by its terms, incapable of performance within one year, and thus, under General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (1) voidable absent a writing signed by the party to be charged (D N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 N.Y.2d 449). Where, as here, the alleged oral agreement may only be terminated within one year upon a breach thereof or non-performance, the New York Court of Appeals has held such an agreement is not terminable at will, but rather that such action would constitute a destruction of the contract, and that the agreement is not exempt from the Statute of Frauds (supra, at 456; McCollester v Chisholm, 104 A.D.2d 361, affd 65 N.Y.2d 891).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.