American Telephone & Utility Consultants, Inc. v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Telephone & Utility Consultants, Inc. v. Beth Israel Medical Center

307 A.D.2d 834, 763 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8746

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 14, 2003·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles [835]*835Ramos, J.), entered April 26, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action for unjust enrichment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the cause of action reinstated.

While the existence of a valid and enforceable contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. RR. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]), where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue, plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quantum meruit and will not be required to elect his or her remedies (Joseph Sternberg, Inc. v Walber 36th St. Assoc., 187 AD2d 225, 228 [1993]). Here, in view of the bona fide dispute over whether, as plaintiff contends and defendant denies, the High Tension Tariff and Power for Jobs programs are within the scope of the parties’ contracts, dismissal of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim with respect to those programs was premature (see ME Corp. v Cohen Bros., 292 AD2d 183, 185-186 [2002]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining contentions. Concur — Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles [835]*835Ramos, J.), entered April 26, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action for unjust enrichment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the cause of action reinstated.

While the existence of a valid and enforceable contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. RR. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]), where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue, plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quantum meruit and will not be required to elect his or her remedies (Joseph Sternberg, Inc. v Walber 36th St. Assoc., 187 AD2d 225, 228 [1993]). Here, in view of the bona fide dispute over whether, as plaintiff contends and defendant denies, the High Tension Tariff and Power for Jobs programs are within the scope of the parties’ contracts, dismissal of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim with respect to those programs was premature (see ME Corp. v Cohen Bros., 292 AD2d 183, 185-186 [2002]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining contentions. Concur — Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

American Telephone & Utility Consultants, Inc. v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 307 A.D.2d 834, 763 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

307 A.D.2d 834 (American Telephone & Utility Consultants, Inc. v. Beth Israel Medical Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related