only if the fee was paid at the closing, based upon BCI’s representation that it had another lender willing to provide financing, and that BCI would proceed with the other lender if Fulcrum did not agree to accept a reduced fee. BCI, on the other hand, claims that Fulcrum agreed to reduce its fee to $50,000 without any conditions. 30. Under New York law, a modification to an agreement may be made orally or in writing. If made orally, there must be consideration for the modification. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1103. In this case, there is not an enforceable oral modification of the Engagement Letter as to the terms of the fee because the Defendant gave no consideration for the decreased fee. See Tierney v. Capricorn Investors, L.P., 189 A.D.2d 629, 592 N.Y.S.2d 700, 703 (1st Dep’t 1993) (<HOLDING>). Although at the time of their February 14,
holding that an alleged oral modification of a written employment agreement was not enforceable because the employees action in remaining on the job did not constitute adequate consideration holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding offer of continued atwill employment did not constitute consideration for the arbitration agreement holding that the arbitration agreement in a written contract did not apply to a dispute arising from a subsequent oral agreement which did not incorporate the arbitration clause from the written contract