Opinion
2013-02365
2015-06-24
QUARTZ CATERERS, INC., et al., appellants, v. NASSAU COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, respondent.
Rivera, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Victor Levin, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants. Abrams, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Keith J. Singer of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), dated November 28, 2012, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“Where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found within the four corners of the contract, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed and reading the contract as a whole” (Ellington v. EMI Music, Inc., 24 N.Y.3d 239, 244, 997 N.Y.S.2d 339, 21 N.E.3d 1000; see Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569, 750 N.Y.S.2d 565, 780 N.E.2d 166). Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the unambiguous terms of the contract ( see Hugh O'Kane Elec. Co., Inc. v. County of Westchester, 54 A.D.3d 660, 862 N.Y.S.2d 804; McGuckin v. Snapple Distribs., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 795, 837 N.Y.S.2d 576). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). The contract should be enforced according to its plain meaning ( see W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is not properly before this Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.