Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Andrea Phoenix, J.), dated January 18, 2013, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered February 13, 2013 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the January 18, 2013 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $956.42.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, so much of the order dated January 18, 2013 as, upon granting the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $956.42 as damages is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a recalculation of the amount of damages plaintiff is entitled to recover with respect to the reduction of defendant's Nassau County taxes and for a trial limited to the issue of damages with respect to the reduction of defendant's Village of Rockville Centre taxes, in accordance with the decision herein.

In January 2004, the parties entered into a contract whereby defendant authorized plaintiff to process a tax petition on his behalf "for filing in calendar year's [sic] 2004 and 2005." After plaintiff filed petitions with the County of Nassau and the Village of Rockville Centre, defendant's property assessments were lowered, and his county and village taxes were reduced. Pursuant to the contract, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff "a fee equal to 50% of the Tax Reduction." Defendant failed to pay plaintiff's $956.42 fee, and plaintiff commenced this action, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment. Thereafter, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By order entered January 18, 2013, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's cross motion. A judgment in the principal sum of $956.42 was entered in plaintiff's favor on February 13, 2013.

Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]) inasmuch as the affidavits and documents submitted in support of plaintiff's motion show that defendant was in breach of the contract because he failed to pay plaintiff for the services it had rendered. Although defendant contends that the contract should be read to authorize plaintiff to file a petition only with the County of Nassau and not with the Village of Rockville Centre, we do not read the contract as being so limited. In any event, it is undisputed that plaintiff expended its time and effort to obtain a reduction of defendant's Village of Rockville Centre taxes, and it would, under the circumstances presented, be against equity and good conscience to permit defendant to benefit from the reduction without compensating plaintiff for the services it rendered (see e.g. Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011]).

The burden then shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Defendant admitted that he had entered into a [*2]contract with plaintiff pursuant to which plaintiff was to file and process a tax petition on his behalf, and that he had agreed to pay plaintiff 50% of his tax reduction, as well as additional charges, as a fee for plaintiff's services. Defendant also conceded that he had paid no monies to plaintiff for the services it had rendered on his behalf, and he did not dispute that both his county and village taxes had been reduced. In view of the foregoing, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact or to establish his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the District Court properly denied his cross motion and granted plaintiff's motion to the extent of awarding plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability.

With respect to the issue of damages, defendant contends that plaintiff did not explain how it arrived at the amount of tax savings that plaintiff had procured for him. However, it is apparent that defendant confuses owing plaintiff 50% of his "tax reduction" (which is calculated by multiplying the property assessment reductions by the appropriate tax rate) with owing plaintiff 50% of the amount that his assessments were reduced. Nevertheless, a review of the record indicates that Exhibit E annexed to plaintiff's reply papers established a county tax rate of 343.092, not the 343.095 rate used by plaintiff in its calculations, thus a recalculation of the reduction of defendant's Nassau County taxes is necessary. Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish the relevant village tax rate.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order dated January 18, 2013 as, upon granting the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $956.42 as damages is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a recalculation of the amount of damages plaintiff is entitled to recover with respect to the reduction of defendant's Nassau County taxes and for a trial limited to the issue of damages with respect to the reduction of defendant's Village of Rockville Centre taxes.

Marano, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.