Kirkpatrick v Brisco

[*1] Kirkpatrick v Brisco 2021 NY Slip Op 50179(U) Decided on March 5, 2021 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 5, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2019-1624 Q C

Dianne Kirkpatrick, Appellant,

against

Arthur Brisco and Home Smart Cross Island Real Estate, Respondents.

Dianne Kirkpatrick, appellant pro se. Arthur Brisco and Home Smart Cross Island Real Estate, respondents pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maurice E. Muir, J.), entered April 2, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $20,222 based on an alleged breach of contract. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint.

To establish a breach of contract, plaintiff was required to establish the existence of a contract, plaintiff's performance pursuant to that contract, defendants' breach of their contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach (see All Seasons Fuels, Inc. v Morgan Fuel & Heating Co., Inc., 156 AD3d 591, 594 [2017]; Kausal v Educational Prods. Info. Exch. Inst., 105 AD3d 909, 910 [2013]; Elisa Dreier Reporting Corp. v Global NAPs Networks, Inc., 84 AD3d 122, 127 [2011]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court properly determined that plaintiff failed to meet her prima facie burden. Consequently, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P. and TOUSSAINT, J., concur.

GOLIA, J., taking no part.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: March 5, 2021