Judge Duffy did not consider the funding of the settlements in connection with his decision concerning the coverage issues is irrelevant.” We are not persuaded. Under New York law, “an action for breach of contract requires proof of (1) a contract; (2) performance of the contract by one party; (3) breach by the other party; and (4) damages.” Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann, 21 F.3d 522, 525 (2d Cir.1994). Liberty Mutual has failed to establish both the third and fourth elements of its prima facie case. We find that there was no breach because information regarding the settlement funds was not in any sense “admitted into evidence”— the district judge refused to consider it in analyzing the issue. Cf. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Austin Travel Corp., 867 F.2d 737, 742-43 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). As Judge Duffy well observed, [T]he language
holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting police reports in civil case under publicrecords exception holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the incomplete and late submission of expert reports was not harmless holding district court did not err in admitting reports that were merely cumulative of evidence already in the record