On November 23, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Gans v. Wilbee Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op. 06541, affirming the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim for lack of a connection between the defendants and the plaintiff, explaining:
Finally, the unjust enrichment claim against Bedrock was also properly dismissed. To state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, plaintiffs must allege: 1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered. While a ‘plaintiff need not be in privity with the defendant to state a claim for unjust enrichment, there must exist a relationship or connection between the parties that is not too attenuated.
Plaintiffs argue that Bedrock was unjustly enriched by plaintiffs’ efforts to advance the real estate development project — which included conceptualizing, planning, and negotiating with key stakeholders — between 2014 and 2016. However, the complaint is devoid of allegations indicating that plaintiffs were aware of Bedrock or its interests prior to May 2016. Bedrock contracted to purchase the KBA property in May 2016, after plaintiffs received their adverse 2016 zoning decision. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs approached Bedrock to inform it and gauge its interest in participating in the project.
Plaintiffs also allege that Bedrock was provided with project-related materials to allow Bedrock to complete its due diligence in the KBA property purchase, and upon information and belief, Bedrock agreed to keep these materials confidential. These allegations are insufficient to establish the necessary relationship between plaintiffs and Bedrock to support an unjust enrichment cause of action.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added).