On August 25, 2022, Justice Ruchelsman of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Harvey Pub. Adjuster, LLC v. Viet Media Agency, 2022 NY Slip Op. 32933(U), dismissing an unjust enrichment claim as duplicative, explaining:
Turning to the motion seeking to dismiss the cause of action for unjust enrichment, it is well settled that a claim of unjust enrichment is not available when it duplicates or replaces a conventional contract or tort claim As the court noted unjust enrichment is not a catchall cause of action to be used when others fail. The plaintiff does not dispute this, but argues that unjust enrichment could be available if the contract were declared unenforceable at some later point and should not be dismissed at this early stage of the :proceedings. However, unjust enrichment is usually reserved for cases where though the defendant committed no wrongdoing has received money to which he or she is not entitled, a truism inapplicable in this case. As the court
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
explained i n Corsello, plaintiffs allege that Verizon committed actionable wrongs, by trespassing on or taking their property, and by deceiving them into thinking they were not entitled to compensation. To the extent that these claims succeed, the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative; if plaintiffs’ other claims are defective, an unjust enrichment claim cannot remedy the defects. The unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed. Likewise, in this case , if for whatever reason the contract will be declared unenforceable, the unjust enrichment claim will not be available to remedy those defects. Consequently, the motion seeking to dismiss the claim of unjust enrichment is granted.