Village of Celoron v. Boutelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Village of Celoron v. Boutelle

115 A.D.2d 310, 495 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54581

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 310 (Village of Celoron v. Boutelle) 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

Village of Celoron v. Boutelle, 115 A.D.2d 310, 495 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly dismissed plaintiff’s cause of action for unjust enrichment against defendant since the record discloses that defendant did not act tortiously or fraudulently when he received a block grant to rehabilitate his home (see, Paramount Film Distr. Corp. v State of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421, cert [311]*311denied 414 US 829). There is no evidence that defendant, who was neither a village official nor an employee, had any part in the mismanagement of village funds. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Adams, J.—dismiss action.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly dismissed plaintiff’s cause of action for unjust enrichment against defendant since the record discloses that defendant did not act tortiously or fraudulently when he received a block grant to rehabilitate his home (see, Paramount Film Distr. Corp. v State of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421, cert [311]*311denied 414 US 829). There is no evidence that defendant, who was neither a village official nor an employee, had any part in the mismanagement of village funds. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Adams, J.—dismiss action.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 310, 495 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-celoron-v-boutelle-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack