Opinion
October 25, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered August 15, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's first and second causes of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Sheldon Feinstein, for plaintiff-respondent.
Melvin J. Kalish, for defendants-appellants.
Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Rubin, Buckley, JJ.
Summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's breach of contract causes was properly denied. The record discloses that the parties were in accord as to the essential elements of the construction subcontract between them, there having been a meeting of the minds as to price, scope of work and time of performance. That the parties may have contemplated a more comprehensive expression of their understanding did not under the circumstances herein render their initial agreement ineffectual (see,Henri Assocs. v. Saxony Carpet Co., Inc., 249 A.D.2d 63, 66-67; Conopco, Inc. v. Wathne, Ltd., 190 A.D.2d 587). Plaintiff's partial performance of the agreed upon work, accepted by defendant Case without objection, as well as written confirmation of the subject subcontract objectively manifest the parties' intent to be contractually bound and suffice at least to raise factual issues as to the viability of defendant's Statute of Frauds defense (see, New Eynon Assocs., L.P. v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 275 A.D.2d 642, 643; Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. New York Yankees, 207 A.D.2d 256, 259).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.