North Salem Psychiatric Services, P.C. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North Salem Psychiatric Services, P.C. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.

50 A.D.3d 986, 854 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedApril 22, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 986 (North Salem Psychiatric Services, P.C. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.) 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

North Salem Psychiatric Services, P.C. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 986, 854 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered April 2, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the amended verified complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the pertinent allegations of the amended verified complaint most liberally in favor of the plaintiffs (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we find that they do not state a cause of action (see Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764, 765 [1996]). Although the plaintiffs seek to recover on a theory of unjust enrichment, their cause of action does not contain the necessary allegation that the defendant unjustly received something of value at the expense of the plaintiffs (see McGrath v Hilding, 41 NY2d 625, 629 [1977]; Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v State of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421 [1972], cert denied 414 US 829 [1973]; Stucklen v Kabro Assoc., 18 AD3d 461, 462-463 [2005]; Stone v Solarbrite, Inc., 128 AD2d 696 [1987]). Rivera, J.P, Skelos, Santucci and Belen, 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, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered April 2, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the amended verified complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the pertinent allegations of the amended verified complaint most liberally in favor of the plaintiffs (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we find that they do not state a cause of action (see Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764, 765 [1996]). Although the plaintiffs seek to recover on a theory of unjust enrichment, their cause of action does not contain the necessary allegation that the defendant unjustly received something of value at the expense of the plaintiffs (see McGrath v Hilding, 41 NY2d 625, 629 [1977]; Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v State of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421 [1972], cert denied 414 US 829 [1973]; Stucklen v Kabro Assoc., 18 AD3d 461, 462-463 [2005]; Stone v Solarbrite, Inc., 128 AD2d 696 [1987]). Rivera, J.P, Skelos, Santucci and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 986, 854 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-salem-psychiatric-services-pc-v-medco-health-solutions-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack