Alliance National Insurance v. Absolut Facilities Management, LLC

Alliance Natl. Ins. Co. v Absolut Facilities Mgt., LLC (2016 NY Slip Op 04370)

Alliance Natl. Ins. Co. v Absolut Facilities Mgt., LLC

2016 NY Slip Op 04370

Decided on June 8, 2016

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 8, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2014-04132
(Index No. 6840/13)

[*1]Alliance National Insurance Company, respondent,

v

Absolut Facilities Management, LLC, appellant.

Lipsius-BenHaim Law LLP, Kew Gardens, NY (Ira S. Lipsius and David BenHaim of counsel), for appellant.

Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City, NY (Linda S. Agnew of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered June 5, 2014, which, upon an order of the same court dated March 17, 2014, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $377,598.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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 Legum v Russo, 133 AD3d 638, 639). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).

In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There is a presumption of the legality of a contract (see Brearton v De Witt, 252 NY 495, 500) and, contrary to the defendant's contention, it failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the contract was illegal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and awarded the plaintiff the damages it sought.

RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court