Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the complaint which alleged that the plaintiff entered into an oral
contract with the defendant to lease a medallion for $666 per
week, and that the defendant breached the contract by later "extracting"
fees from the plaintiff of $852 per week and imposing a 5% charge for
all credit card transactions.
The Appellate Division determined that, as the plaintiff paid the allegedly
excessive fees, the plaintiff was describing an oral
modification, not a breach, of the original contract, which was fully performed. Accordingly, the plaintiff
failed to state a cause of action sounding in breach of contract.
The Appellate Division noted that, where the contract's existence is in dispute, a plaintiff may
allege a cause of action to recover for unjust enrichment as an
alternative to a cause of action alleging breach of contract, pursuant to CPLR 3014. Here, though, the plaintiff's allegations establish that there was a contract, which was fully performed, and full performance of the contract cannot constitute unjust enrichment.
The Appellate Division determined that the causes of action alleging violations of the Rules of the City of
New York Taxi and Limousine Commission were properly dismissed, as a private civil right of action may not be implied from
that regulatory scheme.
Student note: The essential elements of a cause of action to recover damages for
breach of contract are the existence of a contract; the plaintiff's
performance pursuant to the contract; the defendant's breach of its
contractual obligations; and damages resulting from the breach.
Case: El-Nahal v. FA Mgt., Inc., NY Slip Op 01778 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Service on New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
