PETER B. SKELOS
Weinstein, Kaplan & Cohen, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Robert N. Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Jeffrey L. Kingsley and Brian R. Biggie of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated September 6, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“ ‘The fundamental, neutral precept of contract interpretation is that agreements are construed in accord with the parties' intent’ ” ( Willsey v. Gjuraj, 65 A.D.3d 1228, 1229–1230, 885 N.Y.S.2d 528, quoting Franklin Apt. Assoc., Inc. v. Westbrook Tenants Corp., 43 A.D.3d 860, 861, 841 N.Y.S.2d 673 [some internal quotation marks omitted]; see Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569, 750 N.Y.S.2d 565, 780 N.E.2d 166). “ ‘When the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found within the four corners of the contract, giving practical interpretation to the language employed and the parties' reasonable expectations' ” ( Willsey v. Gjuraj, 65 A.D.3d at 1230, 885 N.Y.S.2d 528, quoting Franklin Apt. Assoc., Inc. v. Westbrook Tenants Corp., 43 A.D.3d at 861, 841 N.Y.S.2d 673;see Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d at 569, 750 N.Y.S.2d 565, 780 N.E.2d 166;Dysal, Inc. v. Hub Props. Trust, 92 A.D.3d 826, 827, 938 N.Y.S.2d 642;Correnti v. Allstate Props., LLC, 38 A.D.3d 588, 590, 832 N.Y.S.2d 594). “ ‘Thus, a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms' ” ( Willsey v. Gjuraj, 65 A.D.3d at 1230, 885 N.Y.S.2d 528, quoting Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d at 569, 750 N.Y.S.2d 565, 780 N.E.2d 166;see W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639).
Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the terms of the parties' profit-sharing agreement were clear and unambiguous, and, pursuant thereto, the plaintiff failed to satisfy a condition precedent to receipt of the sum it demanded in the complaint. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the disputed provision was not ambiguous, as it was not reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and properly granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.