Service Tender Offer Litigation, 725 F.Supp. 712, 735 (S.D.N.Y.1989); see also Bell v. Leakas, 90 Civ. 7981, 1993 WL 77320, *9 (S.D.N.Y. March 13, 1993) (“ ‘Promissory estoppel is a legal fiction designed to substitute for contractual consideration where one party relied on another’s promise without having entered into an enforceable contract.’ ”) (quoting Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 723 F.Supp. 976, 993 (S.D.N.Y.1989)). Thus, “[a]n action for promissory estoppel generally lies when there is no written contract, or the contract cannot be enforced for one reason or another.” NCC Sunday Inserts Inc. v. World Color Press, Inc., 759 F.Supp. 1004, 1011 (S.D.N.Y.1991); see also Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata Systems Development, 831 F.Supp. 94, 112 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in relevant part, vacated in part, 47
holding that the plaintiff failed to allege breach of a valid and enforceable contract but stated a claim for promissory estoppel holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel holding that promissory estoppel is applicable only in the absence of an enforceable contract holding that the absence of a binding agreement does not defeat a promissory estoppel claim holding that the issue of whether a contract exists under promissory estoppel is grounded in contract law