Opinion
6997 Index 158124/15
06-28-2018
Eric SORENSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, Defendant–Appellant.
Lorna B. Goodman, New York, for appellant. Winston & Strawn LLP, New York (Ian T. Hampton of counsel), for respondent.
Lorna B. Goodman, New York, for appellant.
Winston & Strawn LLP, New York (Ian T. Hampton of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Webber, Kahn, Oing, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered June 10, 2016, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation for services rendered under the subject contingency fee retainer. It is undisputed that the terms of the retainer violated 22 U.S.C. § 1623(f), and, thus, the retainer was "unlawful and void" under federal law. Under these circumstances, plaintiff's argument that the void retainer allowed him to pursue a quasi-contract theory of recovery is unavailing. In light of the illegality of the retainer, the court properly found that plaintiff had "unclean hands" to foreclose any claim of unjust enrichment (see generally Jossel v. Meyers, 212 A.D.2d 55, 58, 629 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept. 1995] ). Furthermore, plaintiff failed to plead a relationship with defendant that could have caused reliance or inducement on plaintiff's part sufficient to sustain an unjust enrichment claim (see Sperry v. Crompton Corp., 8 N.Y.3d 204, 215–216, 831 N.Y.S.2d 760, 863 N.E.2d 1012 [2007] ; Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v. Rieder, 86 A.D.3d 406, 408, 926 N.Y.S.2d 494 [1st Dept. 2011], affd 19 N.Y.3d 511, 950 N.Y.S.2d 333, 973 N.E.2d 743 [2012] ).