On April 1, 2026, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in 269 W. 87th St. Apt. Corp. v. QSB 267 Prop. Co, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50450(U), dismissing an unjust enrichment claim for lack of a sufficiently close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, explaining:
In the second cause of action, for unjust enrichment against Quadrum, plaintiffs allege that Sponsor obtained the Scale Lending loan in the amount of $37,856,551, secured by the unsold apartments in the cooperative, that the proceeds were transferred to Quadrum, and that Quadrum provided no additional value consideration to the cooperative or the shareholders.
Although privity is not required for an unjust enrichment claim, a claim will not be supported if the connection between the parties is too attenuated. In the complaint, plaintiffs fail to indicate a relationship between them and West 87/Quadrum. Plaintiffs merely allege in their opposition that West 87/Quadrum is a 99.77% interest holder of the membership interest in Holdings. The pleadings fail to indicate a relationship between the parties that could have caused reliance or inducement. Even if the complaint had sufficiently alleged a relationship, the court notes the record is devoid of any benefit that plaintiffs have conferred on West 87/Quadrum. The documentary evidence here, i.e., the Brocco Report, clearly indicates that West 87 did not obtain any benefit, and, on the contrary, the amount due to it under the earnouts was at most an offset. As such, dismissal is warranted.
(Internal citations omitted).