From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fandy Corp. v. Chang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2000
272 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 27, 2000.

May 8, 2000.

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.

Steven L. Herrick, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.

Penzer Sloan, New York, N.Y. (Carl R. Sloan of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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 A.D.2d 708), and therefore was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands from recovering damages for unjust enrichment (see, Kleeger v. Kleeger, 261 A.D.2d 587). In addition, the existence of an enforceable written contract precluded recovery for unjust enrichment (see, Eagle Comtronics v. Pico Prods., 256 A.D.2d 1202). Moreover, there was no showing that the defendant obtained a benefit that in equity and good conscience he should not have obtained because it rightfully belonged to another (see, Bugarsky v. Marcantonio, 254 A.D.2d 384).

BRACKEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, ALTMAN and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fandy Corp. v. Chang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2000
272 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Fandy Corp. v. Chang

Case Details

Full title:FANDY CORP., appellant, v. POWERS CHANG, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 8, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 361

Citing Cases

Smith v. Chase Manhattan Bank

The plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment since the members…

JP Morgan Chase Funding Inc. v. Hehman

The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether it is against equity and…