Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

M & B Joint Venture, Inc. v. Laurus Master Fund, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 4, 2008Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.,

concur in part and dissent in part in a memorandum by McGuire, J., as follows: I agree with the majority that Supreme Court erred in denying that aspect of defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss which sought dismissal of the cause of action for unjust enrichment. I disagree, however, that the court properly denied that aspect of that motion which sought dismissal of the claim for an equitable lien, and that Laurus’ separate motion to cancel the notice of pendency was properly denied. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent in part.

On February 23, 2004, defendant…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Guggenheimer v. GinzburgNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. Maas v. Cornell UniversityNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
  3. James v. Alderton Dock Yards, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
  4. Teichman v. Community Hospital of Western SuffolkNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Biondi v. Beekman Hill House Apartment Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2000

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API