You are here: / / WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT A CAUSE OF ACTION...
,

WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT DUPLICATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court noted that where there is a dispute about the existence of an enforceable contract, a cause of actiono for unjust enrichment is not duplicative:

With respect to the unjust enrichment … [t]hese claims should not have been dismissed as duplicative because “where 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, 2021 NY Slip Op 03370, First Dept 5-27-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DANCER STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT DANCER AND THEIR EMPLOYER, THE NEW YORK CITY BALLET (NYCB), IN CONNECTION WITH INTIMATE IMAGES ALLEGEDLY DISCLOSED BY THE DEFENDANT DANCER (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE SENTENCE FOR MANSLAUGHTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BASED UPON THE INTENT TO KILL WHICH IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME; THE SENTENCES FOR MANSLAUGHTER AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONSECUTIVELY; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).
JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH BOTH QUALIFYING OFFENSES AND OFFENSES WHICH ARE NEITHER QUALIFYING NOR DISQUALIFYING.
Release Applied to Claims Unknown at the Time the Release Was Signed and to Claims Among Parties on the Same Side of the Underlying Lawsuit
DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY UNDER THE ELECTRONIC FILING RULES (TO WHICH DEFENDANTS HAD CONSENTED).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO SUPPORT LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT IN ISRAEL; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT JUSTIFY JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
NO NEED FOR ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY AT SUPPRESSION HEARING, INFERENCE OF MUTUAL COMMUNICATION APPLIED.
Prejudice Which Would Preclude Amendment of an Answer Must Stem from a Right Lost in the Interim Between the Original Answer and the Application to Amend

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

INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY... THE PORTION OF THE NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT WHICH PROHIBITED ENGAGING IN A SIMILAR...