From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Komolov v. Segal

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 20, 2014
117 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-05-20

Alexander KOMOLOV, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. David SEGAL, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for appellants. Frank Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, New York (Beth I. Goldman of counsel), for respondents.


Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for appellants. Frank Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, New York (Beth I. Goldman of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 19, 2013, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the thirteenth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The thirteenth cause of action for unjust enrichment is precluded in this case because it seeks precisely the same relief that was barred by the statute of frauds. GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Komolov v. Segal

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 20, 2014
117 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Komolov v. Segal

Case Details

Full title:Alexander KOMOLOV, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. David SEGAL, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 20, 2014

Citations

117 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3611
985 N.Y.S.2d 411

Citing Cases

Meza v. Cascio

(NYSCEF 69). Given defendants' denial of the existence of a written agreement, and plaintiff's failure to…

Komolov v. Segal

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages in connection with defendants' alleged sale of counterfeit art,…