Opinion
May 2, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the causes of action premised on theories of fraud, fraudulent inducement to contract, and civil conspiracy. The facts constituting the allegedly fraudulent representations are the same as those allegedly giving rise to the plaintiffs' cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract. A failure to perform a promise is merely a breach of contract which must be enforced by an action to recover damages for breach of contract (see, Wegman v. Dairylea Coop., 50 A.D.2d 108, 113; see also, Locascio v. James V. Aquavella, M.D., P.C., 185 A.D.2d 689; SD Maintenance Co. v. City of New York, 169 A.D.2d 417). We find that the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing all causes of action except the breach of contract cause of action asserted against the corporate defendant (see, Westminster Constr. Co. v Sherman, 160 A.D.2d 867).
We have considered the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.