On May 27, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in CIP GP 2018, LLC v. Koplewicz, 2021 NY Slip Op. 03370, holding that unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims are not duplicative when there is a question of fact regarding the existence of a contract, explaining:
With respect to the unjust enrichment claim, plaintiff alleges that the services it provided went beyond the mere negotiation of a business opportunity and, therefore, the claim is not precluded under the statute of frauds as embodied in General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10). These 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.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
Unjust enrichment is a common claim in commercial litigation. It is used when there was not a contract between the litigants, but the defendant received an unfair benefit at the plaintiff’s expense. Contact Schlam Stone & Dolan partner John Lundin at email@example.com if you or a client have questions regarding whether you have, or are the subject of, a claim for unjust enrichment.
Click here to subscribe to this or another of Schlam Stone & Dolan’s blogs.