Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is contended by the plaintiffs upon appeal, inter alia, that the court improperly relied upon evidentiary matter submitted on the motion in order to find that the ninth cause of action, sounding in tortious interference with contract, should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
The elements necessary for a tortious interference with contract are: (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) the defendant's knowledge of that contract, (3) the defendant's intentional procuring of the breach of that contract, and (4) damages (see, Kaminski v United Parcel Serv., 120 A.D.2d 409). In support of the motion, the defendants submitted documents and affidavits which established that the subject contract had never been executed.
It is clear, under the decisional law of this State, that where a movant submits proof establishing that the plaintiff has no proper cause of action, the court is not limited to nor bound by the bare allegations in the pleadings (see, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268). Upon a review of the parties' submissions, this court concludes that the Supreme Court properly found that there was no contract and hence, correctly dismissed the ninth cause of action.
We have reviewed the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant reversal of the order insofar as appealed from. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.