Opinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly granted the branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on its causes of action to recover actual and minimum water consumption charge for 1993 and 1994 inasmuch as the plaintiff demonstrated that no triable issues of fact existed ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The court correctly determined that the increased water rates charged by the plaintiff to the defendant water districts did not breach the water supply contracts entered into by the parties ( see, W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157; Heritage Co. v. Village of Massena, 192 A.D.2d 1039; Matter of Town of Watertown, Water Dist. No. 2 v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 176 A.D.2d 1166; Stepping Stones Assocs. v. City of White Plains, 100 A.D.2d 619; Town Bd. v. City of Poughkeepsie, 22 A.D.2d 270; Town Law § 198 [b], [d]).
In addition, we discern no error in the court's conclusion that the plaintiff's causes of action to recover unpaid minimum consumption rates for the years 1990 through 1992 were time barred under Town Law § 65 (3) due to the plaintiff's failure to file notices of claim against the defendants within six months of the date on which its right to make the demand for payment had accrued ( see, CPLR 206 [a]; Parker v. Town of Clarkstown, 217 A.D.2d 607; Franza's Universal Scrap Metal v. Town of Islip, 89 A.D.2d 843; State of New York v. City of Binghamton, 72 A.D.2d 870).
The parties' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.