Case Name: Quartz Caterers, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Nassau County Bar Association, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-06-24
Citations: 129 A.D.3d 1049
Docket Number: 
Parties: Quartz Caterers, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Nassau County Bar Association, Respondent.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Roman, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 1049–1050

Head Matter:
Quartz Caterers, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Nassau County Bar Association, Respondent.
[10 NYS3d 883]

Opinion:
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 NY3d 239, 244 [2014]; see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]). 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 AD3d 660 [2008]; McGuckin v Snapple Distribs., Inc., 41 AD3d 795 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The contract should be enforced according to its plain meaning (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]).
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.
Rivera, J.R, Roman, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.