Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt, LLP, New York (Paul D. Sarkozi of counsel), and Sperling & Slater, LLC, Chicago, IL (Daniel A. Shmikler of the bar of the State of Illinois, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.

Bracewell LLP, New York (Rachel Goldman of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered September 19, 2023, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the first through fourth causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to the motion court's holding, the June 17 emails do not require new consideration to the extent they constitute a written modification of the parties' existing customer agreement (General Obligations Law § 5-1103; GG Mgrs. v Fidata Trust Co. N.Y., 215 AD2d 241, 241-242 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed 87 NY2d 896 [1995]).

A modification to a contract need not refer expressly to the existing contract (see generally Ion Audio, LLC v Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc., 2019 WL 1494398, *3, 2019 US Dist LEXIS 58913, *8-9 [SD NY, Apr. 2, 2019, No. 15-CV-8292 (KMW)]). Here, the emails at issue sufficiently demonstrate the parties' clear agreement to be bound by the modification and new terms (see, e.g. Stevens v Publicis S.A., 50 AD3d 253, 255 [1st Dept 2008], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 930 [2008]).

The court correctly dismissed the quasi-contract claims as duplicative of the contract claims (see Susman v Commerzbank Capital Mkts. Corp., 95 AD3d 589, 590 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]). Concur—Webber, J.P., Gesmer, González, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ.