Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendant, his son, the amounts expended by him for the defendant's college education. It is the plaintiff's position that the defendant had agreed to repay him. This alleged agreement was not in writing, and the plaintiff relied primarily on letters in which the defendant had acknowledged an obligation to repay him. However, it is apparent from the plaintiff's deposition testimony that, if such an oral promise was made, it was no more than an agreement to agree since the terms of repayment were to be "worked out in the future depending upon circumstances". Where an essential element of a contract is left for future negotiations, there is no enforceable contract (see, Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 N.Y.2d 105; Willmott v Giarraputo, 5 N.Y.2d 250; see also, Azoulay v Cassin, 128 A.D.2d 660; Cosomolite Mfg. Co. v Theodus, 122 A.D.2d 246). The court properly granted the defendant partial summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was based on the alleged loan agreement. Bracken, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.