Opinion
06-30-2017
David M. AHLERS, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. ECOVATION, INC., et al., Defendants, W. Jerome Frautschi, W. Jerome Frautschi Living Trust, Pleasant T. Rowland, Pleasant T. Rowland Revocable Trust, The Pleasant T. Rowland Foundation, Inc., The Overture Foundation, Inc., Diane C. Creel, George Slocum, David Call, David Patchen, Creighton K. (Kim) Early, Richard Kollauf, Rita Oberle, Robert Sheh and Philip Strawbridge, Defendants–Respondents.
Troutman Sanders LLP, New York City (Jonathan D. Forstot of Counsel), Dentons U.S. LLP, Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, Rochester, for Plaintiffs–Appellants. Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo (Kevin M. Kearney of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents W. Jerome Frautschi, W. Jerome Frautschi Living Trust, Pleasant T. Rowland, Pleasant T. Rowland Revocable Trust, The Pleasant T. Rowland Foundation, Inc., and The Overture Foundation, Inc. Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Eli Segal, of The Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bars, Admitted Pro Hac Vice, Of Counsel), and The Wolford Law Firm LLP, Rochester, for Defendants–Respondents Diane C. Creel, George Slocum, David Call, David Patchen, Creighton K. (Kim) Early, Richard Kollauf, Rita Oberle, Robert Sheh and Philip Strawbridge.
Troutman Sanders LLP, New York City (Jonathan D. Forstot of Counsel), Dentons U.S. LLP, Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, Rochester, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo (Kevin M. Kearney of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents W. Jerome Frautschi, W. Jerome Frautschi Living Trust, Pleasant T. Rowland, Pleasant T. Rowland Revocable Trust, The Pleasant T. Rowland Foundation, Inc., and The Overture Foundation, Inc.
Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Eli Segal, of The Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bars, Admitted Pro Hac Vice, Of Counsel), and The Wolford Law Firm LLP, Rochester, for Defendants–Respondents Diane C. Creel, George Slocum, David Call, David Patchen, Creighton K. (Kim) Early, Richard Kollauf, Rita Oberle, Robert Sheh and Philip Strawbridge.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We write only to note that, with respect to plaintiffs' cause of action for unjust enrichment, although "[t]he 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 ; see Goldman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 N.Y.3d 561, 572, 807 N.Y.S.2d 583, 841 N.E.2d 742 ), where, as here, the plaintiffs are not parties to the subject agreements, an unjust enrichment cause of action is not foreclosed (see Ahlers v. Ecovation, Inc., 74 A.D.3d 1889, 1890, 905 N.Y.S.2d 398 ; Marc Contr., Inc. v. 39 Winfield Assoc., LLC, 63 A.D.3d 693, 695, 880 N.Y.S.2d 346 ). We nonetheless conclude that the court properly granted those parts of defendants-respondents' respective motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of that cause of action. It is well settled that "[t]he essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment ... is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered" ( Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v. State of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 415, 421, 334 N.Y.S.2d 388, 285 N.E.2d 695 ). Here, we conclude that defendants-respondents met their initial burden of establishing that there was no unjust enrichment on their part, and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ; Harrison v. Harrison, 57 A.D.3d 1406, 1408, 871 N.Y.S.2d 551 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.