In a recent case, I opposed a motion for Summary Judgment in a collection action with the defense of unjust enrichment. The creditor attempted to recover the same debt twice from different guarantors. Here is on of the defenses, I argued:
The Court of Appeals set forth the standards governing unjust enrichment in the case of Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 182 (2011):
“The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment … is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” . . . A plaintiff must show “that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that ‘it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered.’ ”
If you have any legal questions or need help with collection of a debt, please contact Attorney Scott Lanin at (212) 764-7250 x 201 or use the contact form in the right sidebar.