ROSS v. K.Y.W. Enterprise Corp., Defendant-Respondent. (2006)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered May 4, 2004, dismissing the complaint after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The binder for the $800,000 all-cash sale of defendant Sam Wu's building was not a sufficient memorandum under the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703;  see RAJ Acquisition Corp. v. Atamanuk, 272 A.D.2d 164, 710 N.Y.S.2d 21 [2000] ) in that it failed to identify the corporate seller (see Bhutta Realty Corp. v. Sangetti, 165 A.D.2d 852, 560 N.Y.S.2d 315 [1990] ).  Atai v. Dogwood Realty of N.Y., 24 A.D.3d 695, 807 N.Y.S.2d 615 [2005] and Kursh v. Verderame, 87 A.D.2d 803, 449 N.Y.S.2d 500 [1982], lv. denied 57 N.Y.2d 608, 455 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 442 N.E.2d 70 [1982], upon which plaintiff relies, are factually distinguishable.   In addition, the further negotiations and exchange of drafts here showed that there was never a meeting of the minds on all essential terms (see e.g. Yenom Corp. v. 155 Wooster St. Inc., 23 A.D.3d 259, 805 N.Y.S.2d 304 [2005];  Frankel v. Ford Leasing Dev. Co., 7 A.D.3d 757, 776 N.Y.S.2d 905 [2004] ).

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address plaintiff's other contentions.