Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Caterers v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 15, 2002

290 A.D.2d 295; 736 N.Y.S.2d 335; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 308

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

National Casualty Co. v. Vigilant Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 2006)
Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
ICCO Design/Build, Inc. v. Sunbrite Cleaners, Inc. (In re Sunbrite Cleaners, Inc.) (District Court, N.D. New York 2002)
Pekler v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
AJ Contracting Co. v. Farmore Realty Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Kirell v. Vytra Health Plans Long Island, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
United States Fire Insurance v. American Home Assurance Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Avitabile v. Silvestri (New York District Court 2004)
Bello v. New England Fin. (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County 2004)
Prohealth Care Assoc., Llp v. April (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County 2004)

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about October 20, 2000, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff contracted with defendant Irving Kaufman to cater the wedding of Kaufman’s daughter, defendant llene Gore. Kaufman made partial payment, but soon after the wedding filed for bankruptcy. The outstanding balance owed by Kaufman to plaintiff was discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover the outstanding balance, and defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no cause of action against Kaufman in light of the bankruptcy proceeding and there was no claim against defendants llene and Matthew Gore since there was no agreement between them and plaintiff. Plaintiff responded by cross-moving to amend the complaint to assert claims of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment against the Gore defendants.

The complaint was properly dismissed since plaintiff’s claim against Kaufman was discharged in Kaufman’s bankruptcy proceeding and the Gores are not contractually obligated to plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff’s cross motion to amend its complaint to allege claims against the Gores in quantum meruit was properly denied, since the proposed claims are plainly without merit (see, Tomczak v Trepel, 283 AD2d 229, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 96 NY2d 930). Although the Gores benefited from plaintiff’s services, plaintiff made no showing in the motion court that its services were rendered at the Gores’ behest and thus there is no basis for plaintiff to recover in quantum meruit against the Gores (see, Kagan v K-Tel *296Entertainment, 172 AD2d 375, 376). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.