| Alan B. Greenfield, M.D., P.C. v Long Beach ImagingHoldings, LLC |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01285 [114 AD3d 888] |
| February 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alan B. Greenfield, M.D., P.C., Appellant, v LongBeach Imaging Holdings, LLC, Defendant, and Lenox Hill Radiology & MedicalImaging Associates, P.C., Respondent. |
—[*1] Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Einiger, LLP, LakeSuccess, N.Y. (Sarah C. Lichtenstein of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and unjustenrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Bucaria, J.), dated December 17, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendantLenox Hill Radiology & Medical Imaging Associates, P.C., pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of thedefendant Lenox Hill Radiology & Medical Imaging Associates, P.C., pursuant to CPLR3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it is denied.
The plaintiff, Alan B. Greenfield, M.D., P.C. (hereinafter the P.C.), is a professionalservices corporation specializing in diagnostic radiology. It commenced this actionagainst the defendants Long Beach Imaging Holdings, LLC (hereinafter Long Beach,LLC), and Lenox Hill Radiology & Medical Imaging Associates, P.C. (hereinafter LenoxHill). In the amended complaint, the plaintiff asserted one cause of action against LenoxHill, which sought to recover damages for unjust enrichment. Lenox Hill movedpursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as assertedagainst it, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.
"On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure tostate a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept allfacts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of everypossible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within anycognizable legal theory" (Breytman v Olinville Realty, LLC, 54 AD3d 703, 703-704[2008]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). "Whether the complaintwill later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimatelybe able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscoveryCPLR 3211 motion to dismiss" (Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 38 [2006]; see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19[2005]).
"The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether[*2]it is against equity and good conscience to permit thedefendant to retain what is sought to be recovered" (Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. vState of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421 [1972]). A plaintiff must show that (1) theother party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff's expense, and (3) that it is against equity andgood conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered (see Mandarin Trading Ltd. vWildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011]).
"Unjust enrichment . . . does not require the performance of anywrongful act by the one enriched" (Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 242[1978]). "Innocent parties may frequently be unjustly enriched" (id.). "What isrequired, generally, is that a party hold property 'under such circumstances that in equityand good conscience he ought not to retain it' " (id. at 242, quoting Miller vSchloss, 218 NY 400, 407 [1916]; see Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. vState, 30 NY2d at 421).
Here, the amended complaint alleged that Long Beach, LLC, wrongfully withheld, orotherwise wrongfully barred access to, the plaintiff's files and records (see Thyroff v Nationwide Mut. Ins.Co., 8 NY3d 283 [2007]; Sporn v MCA Records, 58 NY2d 482, 489[1983]). The complaint further alleged that Lenox Hill used the plaintiff's files andrecords to enrich itself at the plaintiff's expense. These allegations were adequate to statea cause of action against Lenox Hill to recover damages for unjust enrichment (see generally Levin v Kitsis,82 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2011]; Restatement [Third] of Restitution § 40). LenoxHill's contention that the nexus between the plaintiff and Lenox Hill was, as a matter oflaw, too attenuated to support a cause of action for unjust enrichment is without merit(cf. Georgia Malone &Co., Inc. v Rieder, 19 NY3d 511, 519 [2012]; Mandarin Trading Ltd. vWildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Courtshould have denied Lenox Hill's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss theamended complaint insofar as asserted against it. Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Miller,JJ., concur.