Legal Opinion
G & S Custom Homes, Inc. v. Holtz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 31, 1992PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The court, however, should have dismissed plaintiff’s cause *1026of action based upon unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. A cause of action in quantum meruit will not lie where an express enforcible contract exists between the parties concerning the same subject matter (see, Miller v Schloss, 218 NY 400, 406-407). Plaintiff cannot rely upon the principles of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit to avoid the operation of General Obligations Law § 15-301 (1). Plaintiff cannot recover unless it proves an express oral agreement modifying the terms of the written contract or facts establishing an…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail RoadNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Miller v. . SchlossNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Westminster Construction Co. v. ShermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Chadirjian v. KanianAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
3Cited by6 opinions
- SAA-A, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata Systems Development, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1993
- G & G Investments, Inc. v. Revlon Consumer Products Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- JEFFREY'S AUTO BODY, INC. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANYAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Jeffrey's Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.