—Order, Supreme Court, New
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.,
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.,
