Caterers v. Kaufman

290 A.D.2d 295, 736 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 308
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 295 (Caterers v. Kaufman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Caterers v. Kaufman, 290 A.D.2d 295, 736 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about October 20, 2000, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff contracted with defendant Irving Kaufman to cater the wedding of Kaufman’s daughter, defendant llene Gore. Kaufman made partial payment, but soon after the wedding filed for bankruptcy. The outstanding balance owed by Kaufman to plaintiff was discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover the outstanding balance, and defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no cause of action against Kaufman in light of the bankruptcy proceeding and there was no claim against defendants llene and Matthew Gore since there was no agreement between them and plaintiff. Plaintiff responded by cross-moving to amend the complaint to assert claims of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment against the Gore defendants.

The complaint was properly dismissed since plaintiff’s claim against Kaufman was discharged in Kaufman’s bankruptcy proceeding and the Gores are not contractually obligated to plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff’s cross motion to amend its complaint to allege claims against the Gores in quantum meruit was properly denied, since the proposed claims are plainly without merit (see, Tomczak v Trepel, 283 AD2d 229, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 96 NY2d 930). Although the Gores benefited from plaintiff’s services, plaintiff made no showing in the motion court that its services were rendered at the Gores’ behest and thus there is no basis for plaintiff to recover in quantum meruit against the Gores (see, Kagan v K-Tel [296]*296Entertainment, 172 AD2d 375, 376). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.
784 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D. New York, 2011)
Pekler v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York
67 A.D.3d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
AJ Contracting Co. v. Farmore Realty Inc.
47 A.D.3d 501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
National Casualty Co. v. Vigilant Insurance
466 F. Supp. 2d 533 (S.D. New York, 2006)
Kirell v. Vytra Health Plans Long Island, Inc.
29 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
United States Fire Insurance v. American Home Assurance Co.
19 A.D.3d 191 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Prohealth Care Assoc., Llp v. April
2004 NY Slip Op 50919(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2004)
Bello v. New England Fin.
2004 NY Slip Op 50520(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2004)
Avitabile v. Silvestri
3 Misc. 3d 393 (New York District Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
290 A.D.2d 295, 736 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caterers-v-kaufman-nyappdiv-2002.