Opinion
March 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).
The cause of action against defendant-respondent for unjust enrichment was properly dismissed on the ground that the advertising services from which it allegedly benefited were provided by plaintiff pursuant to the latter's contract with the codefendant to which respondent was not a party ( see, Kagan v. K-Tel Entertainment, 172 A.D.2d 375). Indeed, as the IAS Court noted, respondent sold its inventory of the product plaintiff advertised to the codefendant before the agreement between plaintiff and the codefendant was signed, and thus respondent could not have been enriched by plaintiff's services, unjustly or otherwise. We have considered plaintiff's argument that defendant-respondent can be held liable by piercing the codefendant's corporate veil, and find insufficient proof of both dominance and control, on the one hand, and fraud or other wrongdoing, on the other, to warrant a trial on that theory.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.