The assertion that the First Lease fails to satisfy the Statute of Frauds is equally unavailing.
General Obligations Law §5-703(2) states, in part, that "[a] contract for leasing for longer
than one year ... is void unless the contract ... is in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged,
or by [a] lawful agent thereto authorized by writing." As stated, defendants' assertions that the
lease misidentified the Owner of the Subject Apartment, and was not properly executed by the
Trustees, are insufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, to
the extent that either party asserts that California law should apply since the Trust is a California
trust, California law is consistent with New York law regarding the misidentification of the
Owner of the Subject Apartment in the lease (see California PAC. Title Co., Sacramento Div.
v Moore, 229 Cal App 2d 114, 116 [1964]), and the ability of one trustee to grant a
co-trustee the authority to act on its behalf (see Duncan v Kahn, 151 Cal App 402, 406
[1957]).
Defendants also seek to invalidate the First Lease by asserting that it was voided by the
Second Lease. They rely on the section of the Preamble to the Second Lease that states:
"Once you and Owner sign this Lease You and Owner will be presumed to have
read it and understood it. You and Owner admit that all agreements between You and Owner
have been written into this Lease. You understand that any agreements made before or after this
Lease was signed and not written into it will not be enforceable"
(Second Lease, supra). However, defendants accepted the
benefits of the First Lease for more than a year, even paying an increase during the second year,