Opinion
February 17, 1948.
Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx, SCHACKNO, J.
Thomas K. Saltzman for respondent.
Stuart Edward Levison and Charles Levine for appellant.
When money or property is entrusted by one party to the other, in reliance on a promise to marry, upon violation of the agreement by the latter, return may be expected under considerations of trust and unjust enrichment. (See dissenting opinion in Andie v. Kaplan, 263 A.D. 884, citing Glazer v. Klughaupt, 116 N.J.L. 507.) However, the law of New York (Civ. Prac. Act, art. 2-A), construed in the controlling decisions, does not allow recovery ( Andie v. Kaplan, 263 A.D. 884, affd. 288 N.Y. 685, supra; Hecht v. Yarnis, 42 N.Y.S.2d 596, revd. N.Y.L.J., Feb. 2, 1944, p. 456, col. 1 [App. Term, 1st Dept.], revd. 268 A.D. 771).
The order should be reversed and defendant's motion, pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss complaint, granted, with $10 costs and disbursements.
HAMMER, CHURCH and EDER, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.