Henry Loheac, P.C. v. Child.'s Corner Learning Ctr., 51 A.D.3d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Henry Loheac, P.C. v. Child.'s Corner Learning Ctr., 51 A.D.3d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“plaintiff was not precluded from bringing an action for breach of contract and, as alternative theories, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment”
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Atlantic Basin Refining, Inc. v. JP Energy Partners, LP
D.V.I. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
plaintiff was not precluded from bringing an action for breach of contract and, as alternative theories, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nunez-Unda v. Adrien
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Given the dispute over what the language at issue means in the Job Description, and the parties' intent as to the scope of Mr. Nunez-Unda' s services and attenuate compensation covered by the Employment Agreement, the defendants are not entitled to dismissal Mr. Nunez-Unda' s quasi-contract claim for recovery (see Loheac v Children's Corner Learning Ctr., 51 AD3d 476,476 [1st Dept 2008]; Curtis Props.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NY Professional Drywall of OC, Inc. v. Rivergate Development, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
However, inasmuch as pursuit of plaintiff’s Lien Law article 3-A claims may become academic in the event that plaintiff recovers on its mechanic’s lien or contract-related claims, it may be prudent, as a practical matter, to determine those claims before the article 3-A claims (see generally CPLR 3002; Henry Loheac, P.C. v Children’s Corner Learning Ctr., 51 AD3d 476, 476 [2008]; William Conover, Inc. v Waldorf, 251 AD2d 727, 728 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NY Professional Drywall of OC, Inc. v. Rivergate Development, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
However, inasmuch as pursuit of plaintiff’s Lien Law article 3-A claims may become academic in the event that plaintiff recovers on its mechanic’s lien or contract-related claims, it may be prudent, as a practical matter, to determine those claims before the article 3-A claims (see generally CPLR 3002; Henry Loheac, P.C. v Children’s Corner Learning Ctr., 51 AD3d 476, 476 [2008]; William Conover, Inc. v Waldorf, 251 AD2d 727, 728 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spirit Locker, Inc. v. Evo Direct, LLC
E.D.N.Y · 2010 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See id. at 389 , 521 N.Y.S.2d 653 , 516 N.E.2d 190 (“[I]t is impermissible ... to seek damages in an action sounding in quasi[-] contract where the suing party has fully performed on a valid written agreement, the existence of which is undisputed, and the scope of which clearly covers the dispute between the parties.”); cf. Henry Loheac, P.C. v. Children’s Comer Learning Ctr., 51 A.D.3d 476 , 857 N.Y.S.2d 143, 144 (1st Dep’t 2008) (plaintiff could recover under quantum meruit /unjust enrichment theory if it could show that it had performed work outside the scope of the original contrac…
cited Cited "see" Nicholas Indus. & Constr. Servs. Inc. v. NASDI, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henry Loheac, PC v. Children's Corner Learning Cntr., 51 A.D.3d 476 (1st Dep't 2008) [involving an oral contract].
discussed Cited "see" Safra v. SNBNY Holdings Ltd.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · signal: accord · confidence high
In New York "the situs of commercial injury is where the original critical events associated with the action or dispute took place, not where any financial loss or damages occurred" (Deutsche Bank AG v Wk, 163 AD3d 414 , 415 [1st Dept 2018]; accord Uzan v Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S., 51 AD3d 476, 478 [1st Dept 2008] ["the situs of the injury for long-arm purposes is where the event giving rise to the injury occurred, not where the resultant damages occurred"]).
discussed Cited "see" Marino v. Coach, Inc. (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Loheac P.C. v. Children’s Corner Learning Center, 51 A.D.3d 476 , 857 N.Y.S.2d 143 (1st Dep’t 2008) (plaintiff may allege breach of contract and unjust enrichment alternatively). 7.Express Warranty Finally, Coach moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ express warranty claim.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Henry Loheac, P.C.
v.
Children's Corner Learning Center
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 8, 2008.
51 A.D.3d 476
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered April 11, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss causes of action for an account stated, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, unanimously modified, on the law, the claim for account stated limited to $25,815.27, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs allegations are supported by documentary evidence and easily withstand contradiction by any extrinsic evidence submitted in support of defendants’ motion. Plaintiff was not precluded from bringing an action for breach of contract and, as alternative theories, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment (see Ellis v Abbey & Ellis, 294 AD2d 168, 170 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 612 [2002]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3002:5). There is a dispute as to the scope of work intended by the original oral contract and whether plaintiff is owed money outside the scope of that agreement (see American Tel. & Util. Consultants v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 307 AD2d 834 [2003]).

There is no merit to the argument that the claim for an account stated should be dismissed for lack of a timely demand for payment or rendering of account, as such assertions are refuted by the evidence of record (see Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Ackerman, 280 AD2d 355 [2001]). However, the claim for an account stated should be limited to $25,815.27, the amount demanded before the dispute over the work was made known; defendants’ inaction has raised an issue as to constructive assent.

We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.