1133 Taconic Llc v. Lartrym Serv. Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 June 2011
• Parties: 1133 TACONIC, LLC, appellant,v.LARTRYM SERVICES, INC., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 992

925 N.Y.S.2d 840

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05470

1133 TACONIC, LLC, appellant,

v.LARTRYM SERVICES, INC., respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 21, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERECorbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Jon Holden Adams of counsel), for appellant.Huff Wilkes, LLP, Tarrytown, N.Y. (John J. Loveless of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated May 26, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant benefitted at the plaintiff's expense and that equity and good conscience require restitution” ( Whitman Realty Group, Inc. v. Galano, 41 A.D.3d 590, 592–593, 838 N.Y.S.2d 585; see Cruz v. McAneney, 31 A.D.3d 54, 59, 816 N.Y.S.2d 486). “Enrichment alone will not suffice to invoke the remedial powers of a court of equity. Critical is that under the circumstances and as between the two parties to the transaction the enrichment be unjust” ( McGrath v. Hilding, 41 N.Y.2d 625, 629, 394 N.Y.S.2d 603, 363 N.E.2d 328; see Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v. Cardinal Abstract Corp., 14 A.D.3d 678, 680, 790 N.Y.S.2d 143).

The Supreme Court properly determined, as a matter of law, that the real property tax payments that the plaintiff paid prior to, and during its wrongful possession of the subject real property, did not constitute an unjust enrichment of the defendant ( see Marini v. Lombardo, 79 A.D.3d 932, 912 N.Y.S.2d 693; Broadway Cent. Prop. v. 682 Tenant Corp., 298 A.D.2d 253, 749 N.Y.S.2d 225; Mente v. Wenzel, 178 A.D.2d 705, 577 N.Y.S.2d 167). In this regard, because the plaintiff has unclean hands, its claims of unjust enrichment are barred ( see Melius v. Breslin, 46 A.D.3d 524, 527, 846 N.Y.S.2d 645). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint ( see Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 425, 429–430, 654 N.Y.S.2d 335, 676 N.E.2d 1178).