the specific "Retirement, Pension, and Profit-Sharing Plans” that are to be divided between the parties. Because the Agreement specifically names the NYPRO ESOP and does not mention the NY-PRO SBP, adherence to the just-quoted maxim would tend to support the inference that the parties did not intend to include the NY-PRO SBP. 10 . In some respects, this situation is similar to those involving parties who negotiate a tentative contract for the sale and purchase of real estate but make that tentative agreement subject to approval of a third party (often the attorney for one of the contracting parties). The law is quite clear that no binding contract exists until such third-party approval is obtained. See, e.g., Nelson v. Ring, 136 A.D.2d 878, 524 N.Y.S.2d 544, 546 (N.Y.App.Div.1988) (<HOLDING>); see also Davis v. Satrom, 383 N.W.2d 831
holding that a contract for sale of real estate was not void where the broker failed to obtain the required licenses holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable holding that the validity of a contract for a commission for the sale of real estate is determined by the law of the state where the contract is made holding that the plaintiff had not stated a claim for inducement to breach a contract where she had not alleged facts sufficient to show the existence of an enforceable underlying contract holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur