Summary
barring unjust enrichment claim because "there can be no quasi-contract claim against a third-party nonsignatory to a contract that covers the subject matter of the claim"
Summary of this case from Mueller v. Michael Janssen Gallery Pte. Ltd.Opinion
10-20-2016
Boaz MAOR, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BLU SAND INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, New York (Bruce R. Ewing of counsel), for appellants. Daley Law, P.C., New York (M. Teresa Daley of counsel), for respondent.
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, New York (Bruce R. Ewing of counsel), for appellants.
Daley Law, P.C., New York (M. Teresa Daley of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 13, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.Defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's breach of contract claim by submitting evidence that, from and after the date of the subject agreement, plaintiff continued to market and sell, for his own benefit, Magic Towels, which pertained to the Invention Assets, without ever obtaining express authorization from defendant Blu Sand International, Inc. Thus, plaintiff's breach of the agreement precluded him from satisfying a necessary element on a cause of action for breach of contract, namely, his own performance under the agreement (see Dorfman v. American Student Assistance, 104 A.D.3d 474, 960 N.Y.S.2d 420 [1st Dept.2013] ).
“The existence of a valid and enforceable written 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. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190 [1987] ). Here, the unjust enrichment claim cannot be maintained, since there can be no quasi-contract claim against a third-party nonsignatory to a contract that covers the subject matter of the claim (see Randall's Is. Aquatic Leisure, LLC v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 463, 464, 938 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 A.D.3d 804, 2005 WL 1414346 [2012] ; Bellino Schwartz Padob Adv. v. Solaris Mktg. Group, 222 A.D.2d 313, 635 N.Y.S.2d 587 [1st Dept.1995] ).
The claim for an accounting should have been dismissed in the absence of a fiduciary relationship arising out of the contract between the parties (see Elghanian v. Elghanian, 277 A.D.2d 162, 717 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept.2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 712, 729 N.Y.S.2d 440, 754 N.E.2d 200 [2001] ; Waldman v. Englishtown Sportswear, 92 A.D.2d 833, 835–836, 460 N.Y.S.2d 552 [1st Dept.1983] ). Plaintiff also failed to show the existence of a joint venture agreement that would give rise to a fiduciary relationship, since there was no evidence that plaintiff agreed to, inter alia, participate in losses as well as profits (see Mendelson v. Feinman, 143 A.D.2d 76, 531 N.Y.S.2d 326 [2d Dept.1988] ).
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ., concur.