Kingston Oil Supply Corp. v. Smith
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtStein, J.
We affirm. “The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment ... is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” (Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). However, a showing that the plaintiff’s actions have benefitted the defendant will not suffice to establish a cause of action for unjust enrichment (see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 16 NY3d at 182; Sperry v Crompton Corp., 8 NY3d 204, 215-216 [2007]; Clark v Daby, 300 AD2d 732, 732…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. WildensteinNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Sperry v. Crompton Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2007
- Clark v. DabyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- ARB Upstate Communications LLC v. R.J. Reuter, L.L.C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Hurd v. HurdAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.