quasi-contract claim in New York

2026The theory of unjust enrichment, which lies as a quasi-contract claim, "contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties" ( Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder , 19 NY3d 511, 516 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins.

2026The theory of unjust enrichment, which lies as a quasi-contract claim, "contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties" ( Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder , 19 NY3d 511, 516 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins.

2026"The elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action are that (1) the defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff; and (3) it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to retain that which is claimed by the plaintiff" ( OneWest Bank , FSB v Spencer , 145 AD3d 1488, 1489-1490 [4th Dept 2016]; see Georgia Malone & Co. , Inc. v Rieder , 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). "[T]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties " ( G

2025"The elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action are that (1) the defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff; and (3) it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to retain that which is claimed by the plaintiff" ( OneWest Bank, FSB v Spencer , 145 AD3d 1488, 1489-1490 [4th Dept 2016]; see Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder , 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). "[T]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties " ( Geo

2026Co. , 5 NY3d 561, 572).

2026Co. , 5 NY3d 561, 572).

2024"The existence of an express agreement, whether oral or written, governing a particular subject matter precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter" ( Morales v Grand Cru Assoc. , 305 AD2d 647, 647 [2d Dept 2003] [citation omitted])."A cause of action alleging unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract claim, and therefore, is not viable where, as here, it is undisputed that the parties entered into an express agreement" ( Woss, LLC v 218 Eckford, LLC , 102 AD3d 860, 862 [2d Dept 2013] [citation omitted]).

2024"The existence of an express agreement, whether oral or written, governing a particular subject matter precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter" ( Morales v Grand Cru Assoc. , 305 AD2d 647, 647 [2d Dept 2003] [citation omitted])."A cause of action alleging unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract claim, and therefore, is not viable where, as here, it is undisputed that the parties entered into an express agreement" ( Woss, LLC v 218 Eckford, LLC , 102 AD3d 860, 862 [2d Dept 2013] [citation omitted]).

2025"Although privity is not required for an unjust enrichment claim, a claim will not be supported if the connection between the parties is too attenuated" (( see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein , 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011]).

2014Plaintiffs contend that defendants were unjustly enriched, through compensation received as a result of negotiating Sanders’ $44 million contract extension, at plaintiffs’ expense. “ ‘The theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim’ and contemplates ‘an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties.’ ” (Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder, 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012], quoting IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 142 [2009].) To state an unjust enrichment claim, plaintiffs must allege “that (1) the o

2024"The existence of an express agreement, whether oral or written, governing a particular subject matter precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter" ( Morales v Grand Cru Assoc. , 305 AD2d 647, 647 [2d Dept 2003] [citation omitted])."A cause of action alleging unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract claim, and therefore, is not viable where, as here, it is undisputed that the parties entered into an express agreement" ( Woss, LLC v 218 Eckford, LLC , 102 AD3d 860, 862 [2d Dept 2013] [citation omitted]).

2024"The existence of an express agreement, whether oral or written, governing a particular subject matter precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter" ( Morales v Grand Cru Assoc. , 305 AD2d 647, 647 [2d Dept 2003] [citation omitted])."A cause of action alleging unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract claim, and therefore, is not viable where, as here, it is undisputed that the parties entered into an express agreement" ( Woss, LLC v 218 Eckford, LLC , 102 AD3d 860, 862 [2d Dept 2013] [citation omitted]).

2026It is an obligation [*2]the law creates in the absence of an agreement" ( Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co. , 179 AD3d 1106, 1108 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2025It is an obligation the law creates in the absence of an agreement" ( Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co. , 179 AD3d 1106, 1108 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2014Commercial Bank, 50 AD3d 1118, 1120 [2008]).

2012Commercial Bank, 50 AD3d 1118, 1120 [2008]; Morales v Grand Cru Assoc., 305 AD2d 647, 647 [2003]).

2026"The elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action are that (1) the defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff; and (3) it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to retain that which is claimed by the plaintiff" ( OneWest Bank , FSB v Spencer , 145 AD3d 1488, 1489-1490 [4th Dept 2016]; see Georgia Malone & Co. , Inc. v Rieder , 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). "[T]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties " ( G

2025"The elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action are that (1) the defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff; and (3) it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to retain that which is claimed by the plaintiff" ( OneWest Bank, FSB v Spencer , 145 AD3d 1488, 1489-1490 [4th Dept 2016]; see Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder , 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). "[T]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties " ( Geo

2026"The elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action are that (1) the defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff; and (3) it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to retain that which is claimed by the plaintiff" ( OneWest Bank , FSB v Spencer , 145 AD3d 1488, 1489-1490 [4th Dept 2016]; see Georgia Malone & Co. , Inc. v Rieder , 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). "[T]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties " ( G

2025"The elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action are that (1) the defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff; and (3) it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to retain that which is claimed by the plaintiff" ( OneWest Bank, FSB v Spencer , 145 AD3d 1488, 1489-1490 [4th Dept 2016]; see Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder , 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). "[T]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties " ( Geo

2024Realty Owners LLC v Alden Global Capital LLC, 210 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2022]; Gateway I Group., Inc. v Park Ave.

2024Realty Owners LLC v Alden Global Capital LLC, 210 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2022]; Gateway I Group., Inc. v Park Ave.

2024The court properly declined to dismiss the quasi-contract claim (count 8) as asserted against the Eshel defendants other than EAP and Eshel individually ( see Carlyle, LLC v Beekman Garage LLC , 133 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2015]; see also 885 3rd Ave.

2024The court properly declined to dismiss the quasi-contract claim (count 8) as asserted against the Eshel defendants other than EAP and Eshel individually ( see Carlyle, LLC v Beekman Garage LLC , 133 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2015]; see also 885 3rd Ave.

2017Thus, “[a] cause of action predicated on a theory of implied contract or quasi-contract is not viable where there is an express agreement that governs the subject matter underlying the action” (Scott v Fields, 92 AD3d 666, 669 [2012]; see IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d at 142 ; Cox v NAP Constr.

2016Thus, “[a] cause of action predicated on a theory of implied contract or quasi-contract is not viable where there is an express agreement that governs the subject matter underlying the action” (Scott v Fields, 92 AD3d 666, 669 [2012]; see Cox v NAP Constr.

2014Further, the trial court improperly conflated the causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment by telling the jury “if you determine there was a breach of contract and unjust enrichment,” and “if you determine it was a breach of contract for unjust enrichment . . . you will then determine [damages].” In any event, the trial court should have charged the jury that the plaintiffs could not recover damages under their cause of action alleging the quasi-contract claim of unjust enrichment if the jury found that the parties entered into an oral contract which covered the same subje

2014Further, the trial court improperly conflated the causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment by telling the jury “if you determine there was a breach of contract and unjust enrichment,” and “if you determine it was a breach of contract for unjust enrichment . . . you will then determine [damages].” In any event, the trial court should have charged the jury that the plaintiffs could not recover damages under their cause of action alleging the quasi-contract claim of unjust enrichment if the jury found that the parties entered into an oral contract which covered the same subje

2013The fact that there are express agreements does not bar the pleading of a quasi contract claim, where, as here, defendants contest the validity of those agreements (see Veritas Capital Mgt., L.L.C. v Campbell, 82 AD3d 529, 530 [1st Dept 2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 778 [2011]).

2013The fact that there are express agreements does not bar the pleading of a quasi contract claim, where, as here, defendants contest the validity of those agreements (see Veritas Capital Mgt., L.L.C. v Campbell, 82 AD3d 529, 530 [1st Dept 2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 778 [2011]).

2025Dist. , 213 AD3d 959, 960 ). "[T]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim.

2024Dist., 213 AD3d 959, 961 [2d Dept 2023]).

2026"The theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties" ( Colgate Inn, LLC v Eberhardt, LLC , 206 AD3d 1197, 1200 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]).

2025Thus, the existence of these valid, written agreements governing the same subject matter precludes a claim for conversion, as a quasi contract claim ( see Parrott v Logos Capital Mgt., LLC , 91 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2012]).

2025Thus, the existence of these valid, written agreements governing the same subject matter precludes a claim for conversion, as a quasi contract claim ( see Parrott v Logos Capital Mgt., LLC , 91 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2012]).

2025"Unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties" ( Bedford-Carp Constr., Inc. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co. , 219 AD3d 1293 , 1295 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Canas v Oshiro , 221 AD3d 650, 651 ; Nasca v Greene , 216 AD3d 648 , 650). "'To recover under a theory of unjust enrichment, a litigant must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party's expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to reta

2025Hosp. v Hinds, 38 NY3d 253 , 275 [2022]; Garda USA, Inc. v Sun Capital Partners, Inc., 194 AD3d 545 , 548 [1st Dept 2021]).

2025Hosp. v Hinds, 38 NY3d 253 , 275 [2022]; Garda USA, Inc. v Sun Capital Partners, Inc., 194 AD3d 545, 548 [1st Dept 2021]).

2025Common law indemnification is "a quasi-contract claim in which a contract is implied in law in order to avoid unjust enrichment, accomplished by shifting a loss by placing the obligation where in equity it belongs" ( Murray Bresky Consultants, Ltd. v New York Compensation Manager's Inc ., 106 AD3d 1255, 1258 [3d Dept 2013] [internal citation and quotations omitted]; see also Hasbrouck v City of NY , 2014 NY Slip Op 33651[U] , *15 [Sup Ct, New York County 2014]; Omni El.

2025The conspiracy allegations merely provide the predicate basis for an otherwise actionable tort and do not constitute a “freestanding claim for conspiracy (Carlson v American International Group, Inc., 30 NY3d 288, 310 [2017]). d) Unjust Enrichment and Conversion A cause of action for unjust enrichment “lies as a quasi-contract claim” (Goldman v Metro Life Ins.

2024"A municipal contract which does not comply with statutory requirements or local law is invalid and unenforceable" ( County of Nassau v Grand Baldwin Assoc., L.P. , 128 AD3d 1004, 1005 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023"The theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties" ( Travelsavers Enters., Inc. v Analog Analytics, Inc. , 149 AD3d at 1006-1007 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]).

2022Thus, in order to sustain such a claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that "(1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party's expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Omar v Moore , 196 AD3d 1182, 1183-1184 [4th Dept 2021]).

2022The fact that the complaint did not assert this quasi-contract claim as a separate cause of action is immaterial, as the sole criterion in reviewing a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss is whether, from the four corners of the pleading, "factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law" ( Guggenheimer v Ginzburg , 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]).