Opinion
10834 Index 650623/18
01-23-2020
POLARIS VENTURE PARTNERS VI L.P., et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. AD–VENTURE CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (James M. Catterson of counsel), for appellants. Goodwin Procter LLP, New York (Charles A. Brown of counsel), for respondents.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (James M. Catterson of counsel), for appellants.
Goodwin Procter LLP, New York (Charles A. Brown of counsel), for respondents.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kern, Oing, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 26, 2018, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the causes of action for unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The IAS court properly found that plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for breach of the agreement. However, the existence of an express contract governing the subject matter precludes plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment ( 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] ). Similarly, the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should have been dismissed as duplicative, because it arises from the same facts and seeks the same damages as the contract claim ( Amcan Holdings, Inc. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 70 A.D.3d 423, 426, 894 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 704, 2010 WL 3397330 [2010] ).