Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Fandy Corp. v. Chang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 8, 2000

272 A.D.2d 369; 707 N.Y.S.2d 361; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5083

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Carriafielio-Diehl & Associates, Inc. v. D&M Electrical Contracting, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
A & A Associates, Inc. v. Olympic Plumbing & Heating Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Smith v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 4, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was not a good-faith purchaser for value of the subject property (see, Yen-Te Hsueh Chen v Geranium Dev. Corp., 243 AD2d 708), and therefore was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands from recovering damages for unjust enrichment (see, Kleeger v Kleeger, 261 AD2d 587). In addition, the existence of an enforceable written contract precluded recovery for unjust enrichment (see, Eagle Comtronics v Pico Prods., 256 AD2d 1202). Moreover, there was no showing that the defendant obtained a benefit that in equity and good con*370science he should not have obtained because it rightfully belonged to another (see, Bugarsky v Marcantonio, 254 AD2d 384). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.