In any event, tenant failed to demonstrate that landlord was unjustly enriched by her continued possession of the subject apartment, since her occupancy was adverse to his expressed interests, as demonstrated by the prior summary proceedings he had commenced against her. Moreover, she received the benefit of living in the apartment ( see Metal Cladding v Brassey, 159 AD2d 958). In addition, the facts alleged in tenant's answer do not support a finding of equitable estoppel or fraud, and do not support tenant's defense of retaliatory eviction.
rom the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP, that it assumed responsibility for all project costs and financial obligations during negotiation of the Final Project Agreements. Moreover, the RFP also provides that unless and until a final agreement is executed, neither party would be liable to the other for any damages or costs of any kind. Thus, although plaintiff may have performed extensive work in anticipation of, and to advance and facilitate these contract negotiations, it could have had no reasonable expectation of payment in the absence of an executed agreement (see Jordan Panel Sys. Corp., 45 AD3d at 180; Metropolitan Steel Indus, v Citnalta Constr. Corp., 302 AD2d 233, 233-234 [1st Dept 2003]). Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim must also be dismissed, since under New York law, "unjust enrichment is not an appropriate remedy for recovery of the expenses of a failed negotiation" (Chatterjee Fund Mgt. v Dimensional Media Assoc., 260 AD2d 159, 160 [1st Dept 1999]; Metal Cladding, Inc. v. Brassey, 159 AD2d 958, 959 [4th Dept 1990]). Our courts have held that any work that was merely preparatory to performance of the contemplated agreement can not constitute the basis for restitution based upon unjust enrichment (Absher Constr. Corp. v Colin, 233 AD2d 279, 280 [2nd Dept 1996]).
Hence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant benefitted at the plaintiff's expense, and that equity demands restitution ( see Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v. Rieder, 19 N.Y.3d 511, 516 [2012] ). Unjust enrichment does not, however, cover a defendant's fees for goods or services actually rendered ( see Gargiulo v. Oppenheim, 63 N.Y.2d 843, 846 [1984] [no unjust enrichment where purchased stock shares actually received]; Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v. State of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 415, 421–22 [1972] [no unjust enrichment of State for charging motion picture license fees], rearg. denied31 N.Y.2d 709 [1972],cert denied414 U.S. 829 [1973];Metal Cladding v. Brassey, 159 A.D.2d 958, 958–59 [1990] [no unjust enrichment where sums paid for services] ).
Defendants aver that, after discussion, defendants decided to cause an entirely different website to be built without any contribution from plaintiffs. There is no question that time and effort spent in negotiating a deal that fails to come to fruition is an insufficient basis to recover for unjust enrichment (Metal Cladding, Inc. v Brassey, 159 AD2d 958, 959 [4th Dept 1990]).
Defendants aver that, after discussion, defendants decided to cause an entirely different website to be built without any contribution from plaintiffs. There is no question that time and effort spent in negotiating a deal that fails to come to fruition is an insufficient basis to recover for unjust enrichment (Metal Cladding, Inc. v Brassey, 159 AD2d 958, 959 [4th Dept 1990]).