On January 30, 2024, the First Department issued a decision in Estate of Tawil v. Sutton, 2024 NY Slip Op. 00397, holding that an illegality defense could not be used to obtain a windfall gain, explaining:
[A]s plaintiff submits, New York courts regularly reject the illegality defense where the breaching party asserts it as a sword for personal gain rather than a shield for the public good, and where voiding the contract would result in the defendant receiving an undeserved windfall. Here, defendant attempted to use the purported illegality of the oral agreement as a defensive sword to procure a windfall of more than $3 million. The trial court properly precluded defendant from presenting irrelevant and prejudicial evidence regarding the purpose of the oral agreement.
(Internal citations omitted).