Metal Cladding, Inc. v. Brassey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metal Cladding, Inc. v. Brassey

159 A.D.2d 958

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 958 (Metal Cladding, Inc. v. Brassey) 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

Metal Cladding, Inc. v. Brassey, 159 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff damages for unjust enrichment following a bench trial. Since plaintiff received the benefits of the services defendants provided during the three months in question, plaintiff does not have an equitable claim to return of the sums paid for such services (see, Gargiulo v Oppenheim, 95 AD2d 484, 495, affd 63 NY2d 843; McGrath v Hilding, 41 NY2d 625, 629; Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v [959]*959State of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421, mot to amend remittitur granted 31 NY2d 678, rearg denied 31 NY2d 709; Robinson v Paramount Pictures Corp., 112 AD2d 208). Also, unjust enrichment is not an appropriate remedy for recovery of the expenses of failed negotiations (see, Songbird Jet v Amax Inc., 581 F Supp 912, 926 [SD NY 1984]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Gorski, J. — replevin.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff damages for unjust enrichment following a bench trial. Since plaintiff received the benefits of the services defendants provided during the three months in question, plaintiff does not have an equitable claim to return of the sums paid for such services (see, Gargiulo v Oppenheim, 95 AD2d 484, 495, affd 63 NY2d 843; McGrath v Hilding, 41 NY2d 625, 629; Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v [959]*959State of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421, mot to amend remittitur granted 31 NY2d 678, rearg denied 31 NY2d 709; Robinson v Paramount Pictures Corp., 112 AD2d 208). Also, unjust enrichment is not an appropriate remedy for recovery of the expenses of failed negotiations (see, Songbird Jet v Amax Inc., 581 F Supp 912, 926 [SD NY 1984]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Gorski, J. — replevin.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metal-cladding-inc-v-brassey-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack