unjust enrichment claim in New York

2026The unjust enrichment claim is not based on any relationship between any plaintiff and McKinsey ( see Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. , 19 NY3d at 517-518 ; Mandarin Trading Ltd. , 16 NY3d at 182 ; Mobile Audio Specialists, Inc. v ACIM NY, L.L.C. , 198 AD3d 572 , 572; Schroeder v Pinterest Inc. , 133 AD3d 12, 27 ).

2026School Dist.</i>, 69 AD3d 769, 771 [2d Dept 2010]).</p> <span>[*3]</span> <p>Defendants did not establish entitlement to summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim (<i>see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein</i>, 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011]).

2026To plead an unjust enrichment claim, "[t]he plaintiff must show that the other party was enriched, at plaintiff's expense, and that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered'" (<i>Georgia Malone &amp; Co., Inc. v Rieder</i>, 86 AD3d 406, 408 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted], <i>affd</i> 19 NY3d 511 [2012]).

2026The unjust enrichment claim is not based on any relationship between any plaintiff and McKinsey ( see Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. , 19 NY3d at 517-518 ; Mandarin Trading Ltd. , 16 NY3d at 182 ; Mobile Audio Specialists, Inc. v ACIM NY, L.L.C. , 198 AD3d 572 , 572; Schroeder v Pinterest Inc. , 133 AD3d 12, 27 ).

2026The unjust enrichment claim was properly dismissed as duplicative of the fraud claim because they are based on the same facts ( see Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc. , 18 NY3d 777, 790 [2012]; Sire Spirits, LLC v Beam Suntory, Inc. , 227 AD3d 630 , 631-632 [1st Dept 2024]).

2026"An unjust enrichment claim is not available where it simply duplicates, or replaces, a conventional contract or tort claim" ( Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc. , 18 NY3d 777, 790 ). "[U]njust enrichment is not a catchall cause of action to be used when others fail.

2024A valid agreement governing whether the disputed payments were due and owing precludes the unjust enrichment claim. ( See IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 142 ["Where the parties executed a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter, recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment for events arising out of that subject matter is ordinarily precluded" (citation omitted)], rearg denied, 12 NY2d 889 [2009].) It makes no difference that TRKKY is not a party to the Development Agreement, as it is alleged that TRKKY collected payments in connecti

2024The unjust enrichment claim against Icon is not duplicative of the breach of contract claim against Tenant, as Icon was not a party to any contract governing the subject matter at issue ( see generally id. at 142) — although this may not be the case if veil-piercing is ultimately found to be appropriate.

2026To plead an unjust enrichment claim, "[t]he plaintiff must show that the other party was enriched, at plaintiff's expense, and that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered'" (<i>Georgia Malone &amp; Co., Inc. v Rieder</i>, 86 AD3d 406, 408 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted], <i>affd</i> 19 NY3d 511 [2012]).

2023First, there is no evidence that Martinez benefited or was enriched from the $48,000 and thus the unjust enrichment claim cannot stand ( see Georgia Malone & Co, Inc. v Rieder , 86 AD3d 406, 408 [1st Dept 2011], affd 19 NY3d 511 [2012]).

2023"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" ( Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein , 16 NY3d at 182 , citing Sperry v Crompton Corp. , 8 NY3d 204, 215 ).

2018"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" ( Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein , 16 NY3d at 182 , citing Sperry v Crompton Corp ., 8 NY3d 204, 215 ; see J.P.

2014Accepting these allegations as true and affording plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference (see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]), Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiff stated a cause of action for breach of contract (see Torok v Moore’s Flatwork & Founds., LLC, 106 AD3d 1421 , 1422 [2013]; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052, 1055 [2009]), and properly converted that portion of the unjust enrichment claim into a. breach of contract claim.

2014Accepting these allegations as true and affording plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference (see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]), Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiff stated a cause of action for breach of contract (see Torok v Moore’s Flatwork & Founds., LLC, 106 AD3d 1421 , 1422 [2013]; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052, 1055 [2009]), and properly converted that portion of the unjust enrichment claim into a. breach of contract claim.

2026The unjust enrichment claim is not based on any relationship between any plaintiff and McKinsey ( see Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. , 19 NY3d at 517-518 ; Mandarin Trading Ltd. , 16 NY3d at 182 ; Mobile Audio Specialists, Inc. v ACIM NY, L.L.C. , 198 AD3d 572 , 572; Schroeder v Pinterest Inc. , 133 AD3d 12, 27 ).

2024In addition, "a plaintiff cannot succeed on an unjust enrichment claim unless it has a sufficiently close relationship with the other party." Schroeder, 133 AD3d at 26 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2016The unjust enrichment claim was also timely asserted under the applicable six-year statute of limitations (Maya NY, LLC v Hagler, 106 AD3d 583, 585 [1st Dept 2013]; Knobel v Shaw, 90 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2011]).

2016The legal malpractice claim, which accrued at the time the mortgages were recorded after closing (Benedict v Estate of Noumair, 289 AD2d 71 [1st Dept 2001]) and is governed by a three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214 [6]), and the unjust enrichment claim, which accrued “upon the occurrence of the alleged wrongful act giving rise to restitution” (Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 127 [1st Dept 2003]) and is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [1]); see also Maya NY, LLC v Hagler, 106 AD3d 583, 585 [1st Dept 2013]), are time-barred.

2013For the same reason, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of the cause of action alleging that Inter-Reco was unjustly enriched in its entirety. 3 “An unjust enrichment claim ‘rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another’ ” (IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 142 [2009], quoting Miller v Schloss, 218 NY 400, 407 [1916]).

2013For the same reason, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of the cause of action alleging that Inter-Reco was unjustly enriched in its entirety. 3 “An unjust enrichment claim ‘rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another’ ” (IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 142 [2009], quoting Miller v Schloss, 218 NY 400, 407 [1916]).

2023LEGAL STANDARD On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, "the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction" and the court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v. Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]); Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co ., 40 NY2d 633, 634 [1976] ["a complaint should not be dismissed on a pleading motion so long as, when the plaintiff is given the benefit of every possible favorable inference, a

2011Accordingly, it is extremely unfair and improper, in the context of a CPLR 3211 motion, where “the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]), to require that plaintiff plead the minutia of the unjust enrichment claim (see Suffolk County Water Auth. v Dow Chem.

2020Even accepting the Plaintiffs' argument that a constructive trust may be imposed in the absence of a fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiffs and Mr. Zizza ( Simonds v Simonds , 45 NY2d 233, 242 [1978] [noting that the four factors in Sharp should not be rigidly limited]), the claim for a constructive trust must nevertheless be dismissed as duplicative of the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment ( see Taberna Preferred Funding II, Ltd. v Advance Realty Group LLC , 2014 NY Slip Op 51461[U], *15 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014] [recognizing that purpose of a constructive trust is to prevent unju

2020Even accepting the Plaintiffs' argument that a constructive trust may be imposed in the absence of a fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiffs and Mr. Zizza ( Simonds v Simonds , 45 NY2d 233, 242 [1978] [noting that the four factors in Sharp should not be rigidly limited]), the claim for a constructive trust must nevertheless be dismissed as duplicative of the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment ( see Taberna Preferred Funding II, Ltd. v Advance Realty Group LLC , 2014 NY Slip Op 51461[U], *15 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014] [recognizing that purpose of a constructive trust is to prevent unju

2023Accordingly, since, there is no genuine dispute regarding the creation and existence of the settlement agreement, the unjust enrichment claim is precluded ( Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island RR Co ., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

2023Accordingly, since, there is no genuine dispute regarding the creation and existence of the settlement agreement, the unjust enrichment claim is precluded ( Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island RR Co ., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

2022Finally, Supreme Court correctly determined that dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim was required, as there was a valid and enforceable contract governing the parties' disputes ( see Remora Capital S.A. v Dukan , 175 AD3d 1219 , 1221 [1st Dept 2019]; Goldstein v CIBC World Markets Corp. , 6 AD3d 295, 296 [1st Dept 2004]).

2022Finally, Supreme Court correctly determined that dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim was required, as there was a valid and enforceable contract governing the parties' disputes ( see Remora Capital S.A. v Dukan , 175 AD3d 1219 , 1221 [1st Dept 2019]; Goldstein v CIBC World Markets Corp. , 6 AD3d 295, 296 [1st Dept 2004]).

2022The unjust enrichment claim is also not duplicative of the breach of contract claim, because it was asserted only against the two defendant entities that were not parties to either subordination agreement and sought to recover only the monies paid thereto ( see generally Pappas v Tzolis , 20 NY3d 228, 234 [2012]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

2022The unjust enrichment claim is also not duplicative of the breach of contract claim, because it was asserted only against the two defendant entities that were not parties to either subordination agreement and sought to recover only the monies paid thereto ( see generally Pappas v Tzolis , 20 NY3d 228, 234 [2012]).

2021The motion court correctly declined to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, which may be pleaded in the alternative ( Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher , 115 AD3d 600, 601 [1st Dept 2014]).

2021The motion court correctly declined to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, which may be pleaded in the alternative ( Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher , 115 AD3d 600, 601 [1st Dept 2014]).

2016The legal malpractice claim, which accrued at the time the mortgages were recorded after closing (Benedict v Estate of Noumair, 289 AD2d 71 [1st Dept 2001]) and is governed by a three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214 [6]), and the unjust enrichment claim, which accrued “upon the occurrence of the alleged wrongful act giving rise to restitution” (Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 127 [1st Dept 2003]) and is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [1]); see also Maya NY, LLC v Hagler, 106 AD3d 583, 585 [1st Dept 2013]), are time-barred.

2007The equitable breach of fiduciary duty claim seeking disgorgement of $10 million is governed by a six-year limitations period (CPLR 213 [1]; Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 118 [2003]), and should not be dismissed at this stage of the litigation as “duplicative” of the unjust enrichment claim, when it properly serves as an alternative theory for the relief sought.

2013The unjust enrichment claim requires a showing that defendants were enriched at plaintiffs expense and that “it is against equity and good conscience to permit [them] to retain what is sought to be recovered” (Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Augur v Augur, 90 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).

2013The unjust enrichment claim requires a showing that defendants were enriched at plaintiffs expense and that “it is against equity and good conscience to permit [them] to retain what is sought to be recovered” (Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Augur v Augur, 90 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).

2025"The statute of limitations on an unjust enrichment claim begins to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution" ( Ingrami v Rovner , 45 AD3d at 808 ; see Matter of Trombley , 137 AD3d at 1642-1643; Lambert v Sklar , 30 AD3d 564, 566 [2d Dept 2006]).

2025"The statute of limitations on an unjust enrichment claim begins to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution" ( Ingrami v Rovner , 45 AD3d at 808 ; see Matter of Trombley , 137 AD3d at 1642-1643; Lambert v Sklar , 30 AD3d 564, 566 [2d Dept 2006]).

2025Unjust enrichment claim The defendants also fail to identify a conflict of law as to the unjust enrichment claim warranting a choice of law analysis (see e.g., CFLB P'ship, LLC v Diamond Blue Int'l, Inc., 352 So. 3d 357 [Fla. 3rd DCA 2022]; Fulton v Brancato, 189 So. 3d 967 [Fla. 4th DCA 2016]; Ocean Commc’ns, Inc. v Bubek, 956 So. 2d. 1222 [Fla. 4th DCA 2007]; see also Farina v. Bastianich, 116 A.D.3d 546, 548 , 984 N.Y.S.2d 46, 49 [1st Dept. 2014]; Wiener v Lazard Freres & Co., 241 A.D.2d 114 , 672 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept. 1998]; Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Island R.

2025Unjust enrichment claim The defendants also fail to identify a conflict of law as to the unjust enrichment claim warranting a choice of law analysis (see e.g., CFLB P'ship, LLC v Diamond Blue Int'l, Inc., 352 So. 3d 357 [Fla. 3rd DCA 2022]; Fulton v Brancato, 189 So. 3d 967 [Fla. 4th DCA 2016]; Ocean Commc’ns, Inc. v Bubek, 956 So. 2d. 1222 [Fla. 4th DCA 2007]; see also Farina v. Bastianich, 116 A.D.3d 546, 548 , 984 N.Y.S.2d 46, 49 [1st Dept. 2014]; Wiener v Lazard Freres & Co., 241 A.D.2d 114 , 672 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept. 1998]; Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Island R.

2024Corp. v State, 30 NY2d 415, 421 (1972) (citations omitted).

2019Similarly, the unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed as against Mark and Interel because there is no issue of fact as to whether "the benefit still remains with" those defendants ( Paramount , 30 NY2d at 421 ).

2021Corp. v Greif Cos., 236 AD2d 237, 239 [1st Dept 1997]).

2021Corp. v Greif Cos., 236 AD2d 237, 239 [1st Dept 1997]).

2025"The statute of limitations on an unjust enrichment claim begins to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution" ( Ingrami v Rovner , 45 AD3d at 808 ; see Matter of Trombley , 137 AD3d at 1642-1643; Lambert v Sklar , 30 AD3d 564, 566 [2d Dept 2006]).

2025"The statute of limitations on an unjust enrichment claim begins to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution" ( Ingrami v Rovner , 45 AD3d at 808 ; see Matter of Trombley , 137 AD3d at 1642-1643; Lambert v Sklar , 30 AD3d 564, 566 [2d Dept 2006]).

2024Island Stars 21 Inc. v Buccaria , 221 AD3d 531, 532 [1st Dept 2023]).

2024Island Stars 21 Inc. v Buccaria , 221 AD3d 531, 532 [1st Dept 2023]).

2024Neither does the court find that the counterclaimants pursue this quasi-contractual claim for the "sole purpose of circumventing the statute of frauds" ( Future Star Hospitality Advisors, LLC v LaFrieda Veal & Lamb Co., Inc. , 203 AD3d 509, 509 [1st Dept 2022]). "[W]here there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or the application of a contract in the dispute in issue, a plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quasi contract as well as breach of contract, and will not be required to elect his or her remedies" ( CIP GP 2018, LLC v Koplewicz , 194 AD3d 639, 640 [1st Dept 2021

2024Neither does the court find that the counterclaimants pursue this quasi-contractual claim for the "sole purpose of circumventing the statute of frauds" ( Future Star Hospitality Advisors, LLC v LaFrieda Veal & Lamb Co., Inc. , 203 AD3d 509, 509 [1st Dept 2022]). "[W]here there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or the application of a contract in the dispute in issue, a plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quasi contract as well as breach of contract, and will not be required to elect his or her remedies" ( CIP GP 2018, LLC v Koplewicz , 194 AD3d 639, 640 [1st Dept 2021