REINALDO E. RIVERA
Stanley A. Schutzman, P.C., Spring Valley, N.Y., for appellants. Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Jocelyn E. Lupetin of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated February 25, 2013, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the first, second, and third causes of action, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the counterclaim alleging tortious interference with business relations asserted by the defendant ZMY Food Packing, Inc.
ORDERED that the appeal by the defendants J&M Piping and Heating, Inc., and Joel Mendlovitz from so much of the order as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the counterclaim alleging tortious interference with business relations asserted by the defendant ZMY Food Packing, Inc., is dismissed, as they are not aggrieved thereby ( seeCPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
“[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” (Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569, 750 N.Y.S.2d 565, 780 N.E.2d 166; see Altronix Corp. v. Central Machining Specialists, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 991, 923 N.Y.S.2d 183). The essential elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach ( see El–Nahal v. FA Mgt., Inc., 126 A.D.3d 667, 668, 5 N.Y.S.3d 201; Dee v. Rakower, 112 A.D.3d 204, 208–209, 976 N.Y.S.2d 470; Elisa Dreier Reporting Corp. v. Global NAPs Networks, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 122, 127, 921 N.Y.S.2d 329).
Here, in support of that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the first, second, and third causes of action, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). In this regard, the plaintiff submitted the parties' agreement, which clearly set forth the terms thereof, as well as evidence that it had performed its obligations under the agreement, and that the defendants breached the agreement by failing to make the required payments, which resulted in damages to the plaintiff ( see AFA Protective Sys., Inc. v. Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 128 A.D.3d 869, 9 N.Y.S.3d 616). In opposition thereto, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the first, second, and third causes of action.
Further, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the counterclaim alleging tortious interference with business relations asserted by the defendant ZMY Food Packing, Inc. ( see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424–425, 646 N.Y.S.2d 76, 668 N.E.2d 1370; Kenneth H. Brown & Co., Inc. v. Dutchess Works One–Stop Empl. & Training Ctr., Inc., 73 A.D.3d 984, 985, 904 N.Y.S.2d 75).