Zulema Mejias and Oscar Penas, Appellants, v. Amazon Corporate Headquarters, Doing Business as Amazon Music-Amazon Legal Department, Respondent. (2024)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, the executive producer and artist, respectively, of a music album, commenced this action by the filing of a summons with endorsed complaint on May 25, 2023 seeking $50,000 plus interest for "Failure to provide proper services." Plaintiffs subsequently stated that the basis of their claim was defendant's alleged failure to correct a broken product link on defendant's online store, which resulted in consumers being unable to purchase plaintiffs' album from the online store.

By notice of motion dated October 17, 2023, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing, among other things, that any injury suffered by plaintiffs was caused by plaintiffs' purchase of a Universal Product Code (UPC) for their album from a reseller, in violation of defendant's policies. In opposition, plaintiffs, among other things, acknowledged that they had purchased the UPC for their album from a reseller. By order entered November 1, 2023, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.

"[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). "If the moving party meets this burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to 'establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action' " (Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014], quoting Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]).

"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" (R. Vig Props., LLC v Rahimzada, 213 AD3d 871, 873 [2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The elements of a cause of action alleging common-law negligence are a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and a showing that the breach of that duty proximately caused injury to the plaintiff" (Borghese v Redard, 226 AD3d 639, 640 [2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, defendant established, prima facie, that any alleged breach of contract or negligence on its part did not cause plaintiffs' alleged injuries, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to that showing. Thus, the Civil Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Notaroberta v Golub, 226 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2024]; Pasquaretto v Long Is. Univ., 150 AD3d 1129, 1131 [2017]; Purcell v M.L. Bruenn Co., Inc., 125 AD3d 739, 740 [2015]; cf. Larchmont Nurseries, Inc. v Daly, 33 AD3d 872, 874 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: December 6, 2024