You are here: / / No Need to Allege “the Benefit Was Conferred at the Behest of the...

No Need to Allege “the Benefit Was Conferred at the Behest of the Defendant”

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department determined  a 2012 Court of Appeals case (Georgia Malone & Co Inc v Reider, 19 NY3d 511) did not change the law of unjust enrichment and explained the nature of the relationship between the parties which must be alleged in the pleadings:

It is well established that to successfully plead unjust enrichment “[a] plaintiff must allege 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'” … . A claim for unjust enrichment “is undoubtedly equitable and depends upon broad considerations of equity and justice” … . A plaintiff is not required to allege privity. It must, however, “assert a connection between the parties that [is] not too attenuated” … . Thus, although a plaintiff could satisfy this requirement by alleging that the benefit was conferred at the behest of the defendant …, the Court of Appeals has never required such a relationship. Rather, the pleadings merely have to “indicate a relationship between the parties that could have caused reliance or inducement” … . Philips Intl Invs LLC v Pektor, 2014 Slip Op 01700, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

You might also like
POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WHO RECOVERED STOLEN PROPERTY FROM HIM WAS LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE POLICE (FIRST DEPT).
OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE.
Supreme Court Used the Wrong Standards When It Denied Petitioner’s Request for Documents Relating to Complaints Alleging the Improper Use of School Property by an Employee of the Department of Education (the Employee Gave a Speech on School Property Which May Have Violated the Chancellor’s Regulations re: the Use of School Property for Political Purposes)—Correct Analytical Criteria Explained and Applied
THE POLICE STARTED FOLLOWING DEFENDANT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE CROSSED THE STREET TO AVOID THEM; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE GROUNDS FOR A COMMON-LAW INQUIRY AND NOTHING DEFENDANT DID AFTER THE STREET STOP JUSTIFIED THE LEVEL THREE SEIZURE OF THE DEFENDANT; THE WEAPON FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
A QUESTION OF FACT EXISTS WHETHER DEFENDANT DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STABBED BY A PATIENT OF THE FACILITY SHORTLY AFTER DISCHARGE.
HANDGUN FOUND IN A COAT IN A CLOSET BY A PAROLE OFFICER WITH A PAROLE ABSCONDER WARRANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DUCT ON THE FLOOR WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEMOLITION WORK, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID NOT APPLY; THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 200 DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Taxi Owners Not Entitled to Damages After Ruling by NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission... “Relation-Back” Doctrine Applied Where City Mistakenly Not Named...