Foxstone Grp., LLC v. Calvary Pentecostal Church, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. RBG Mgmt. Corp. v. Vill. Super Mkt.

    692 F. Supp. 3d 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 2 times
    Dismissing unjust enrichment claim

    Morton Williams has failed to allege "why it is against equity and good conscience to allow [Village] to retain" the alleged benefit. FoxStone Grp., LLC v. Calvary Pentecostal Church, Inc., 173 A.D.3d 978, 104 N.Y.S.3d 663, 666-67 (2d Dep't 2019). Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are thus insufficient to state a claim for unjust enrichment.

  2. 111 W. 57th Inv. v. 111 W57 Mezz Inv'r

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 34258 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Even if Plaintiff s claim is not precluded by the JVA, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment as Plaintiff fails to allege some type of direct dealings or an actual, substantive relationship between Plaintiff and each of the respective Atlantic Defendants (beyond the JVA) (see Georgia Malone &Co., Inc. v Rieder, 19 N.Y.3d 511,517 [2012]). Likewise, Plaintiffs bare legal conclusions "that it is against equity and good conscience [for the Atlantic Defendants] to retain an unidentified benefit is insufficient to adequately allege that an asserted enrichment was unjust" (FoxStone Group, LLC v Calvary Pentecostal Church, Inc., 173 A.D.3d 978, 981 [2d Dept 2019]). Accordingly, the sixth cause of action for unjust enrichment must be dismissed.

  3. Trim v. N.Y. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 33656 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    Cause of Action—Unjust Enrichment: As to plaintiff's cause of action for unjust enrichment, plaintiff must plead that, (1) defendant were enriched, (2) at his expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit defendants to retain what is sought to be recovered (see FoxStone Group, LLC v Calvary Pentecostal Church, Inc., 173 AD3d 978, 981 [2d Dept 2019]; GFRE, Inc. v U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 AD3d 569, 570 [2d Dept 2015]). A bare legal conclusion that it is against equity and good conscience to retain an unidentified benefit is insufficient to adequately allege that an asserted enrichment was unjust (id.; Swartz v Swartz, 145 AD 3d 818, 830 [2d Dept 2016]).

  4. New Generation Wellness Chiropractic P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co.

    66 Misc. 3d 1207 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Plaintiff effectively conceded to the Court that the terms of the Modified April 12, 2009 Letter constituted the terms of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, CPLR 5003-a is inapplicable because the provision regarding payment and entry of judgment pursuant to CPLR 5003-a is clearly stricken from Modified April 12, 2009 Letter and, in entering judgment, Plaintiff was required to provide evidence of compliance with the handwritten modification mandating notice prior to entry of judgment (seeFoxStone Group, LLC v. Calvary Pentecostal Church, Inc. , 173 AD3d 978, 980 [2d Dept 2019] ("It is a fundamental principle for contract interpretation that when a handwritten or typewritten provision conflicts with the language of a preprinted form document, the former will control, as it is presumed to express the latest intention of the parties") (internal citations and quotations omitted). Plaintiff has further admitted that it failed to provide Defendant with notice of its intention to apply to the clerk for a default judgment.

  5. GHVHS Med. Grp. v. Arthurs

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33988 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    "To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, a party must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party's expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered" (citing Goel v. Ramachandran, 111 A.D.3d 783, 791, 975 N.Y.S.2d 428 [internal quotation marks omitted])." FoxStone Group, LLC v CalvaryPentecostal Church, Inc., 173 AD3d 978, 981 [2d Dept 2019]. While Dr. Arthurs may be enriched by receiving this profit, she is not being enriched at the expense of the Plaintiff.