Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

American Telephone & Utility Consultants, Inc. v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 14, 2003

307 A.D.2d 834; 763 N.Y.S.2d 466; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8746

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Hosking v. TPG Capital Management, L.P. (In re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2015)
Maggard v. Essar Global Ltd. (District Court, W.D. Virginia 2014)
Poplar Lane Farm LLC v. The Fathers of Our Lady of Mercy (2d Cir. 2011)
Ceratosaurus Invs., LLC v. B2C Alternative Equity, LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Ceratosaurus Invs., LLC v. B2C Alternative Equity, LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Mancuso v. L'oreal USA, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
Omar v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Aquino v. Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Henry Loheac, P.C. v. Children's Corner Learning Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
IIG Capital LLC v. Archipelago, L.L.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Roberts v. 112 Duane Associates LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

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 (Charles *835Ramos, J.), entered April 26, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action for unjust enrichment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the cause of action reinstated.

While the existence of a valid and enforceable contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. RR. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]), where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue, plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quantum meruit and will not be required to elect his or her remedies (Joseph Sternberg, Inc. v Walber 36th St. Assoc., 187 AD2d 225, 228 [1993]). Here, in view of the bona fide dispute over whether, as plaintiff contends and defendant denies, the High Tension Tariff and Power for Jobs programs are within the scope of the parties’ contracts, dismissal of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim with respect to those programs was premature (see ME Corp. v Cohen Bros., 292 AD2d 183, 185-186 [2002]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining contentions. Concur — Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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