Fandy Corp. v. Chang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fandy Corp. v. Chang

272 A.D.2d 369, 707 N.Y.S.2d 361, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5083

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 369 (Fandy Corp. v. Chang) 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

Fandy Corp. v. Chang, 272 A.D.2d 369, 707 N.Y.S.2d 361, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 4, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was not a good-faith purchaser for value of the subject property (see, Yen-Te Hsueh Chen v Geranium Dev. Corp., 243 AD2d 708), and therefore was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands from recovering damages for unjust enrichment (see, Kleeger v Kleeger, 261 AD2d 587). In addition, the existence of an enforceable written contract precluded recovery for unjust enrichment (see, Eagle Comtronics v Pico Prods., 256 AD2d 1202). Moreover, there was no showing that the defendant obtained a benefit that in equity and good con[370]*370science he should not have obtained because it rightfully belonged to another (see, Bugarsky v Marcantonio, 254 AD2d 384). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 4, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was not a good-faith purchaser for value of the subject property (see, Yen-Te Hsueh Chen v Geranium Dev. Corp., 243 AD2d 708), and therefore was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands from recovering damages for unjust enrichment (see, Kleeger v Kleeger, 261 AD2d 587). In addition, the existence of an enforceable written contract precluded recovery for unjust enrichment (see, Eagle Comtronics v Pico Prods., 256 AD2d 1202). Moreover, there was no showing that the defendant obtained a benefit that in equity and good con[370]*370science he should not have obtained because it rightfully belonged to another (see, Bugarsky v Marcantonio, 254 AD2d 384). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 369, 707 N.Y.S.2d 361, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fandy-corp-v-chang-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack