2520 JEROME AVENUE LLC v. CORPORATION OF RECTOR CHURCHWARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF SAINT JAMES EPISCOPAL (2020)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ruben Franco, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2018, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's breach of contract claim was properly dismissed.  The record shows that defendant's obligation under the parties' contract was simply to apply for certain consents, not to obtain them, and there was no triable issue of fact as to defendant's application for the consents.  Plaintiff's claimed need for additional discovery was based solely on conjecture and speculation, and is thus insufficient (see A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 92 N.Y.2d 20, 33, 677 N.Y.S.2d 9, 699 N.E.2d 368 [1998];  Steinberg v. Schnapp, 73 A.D.3d 171, 177, 899 N.Y.S.2d 167 [1st Dept. 2010] ).

Because the contract was one for sale of a “Protestant Episcopal” church, the motion court was correct that it could not order specific performance of the contract where the Bishop, Standing Committee and Diocese had refused to approve the sale (Religious Corporations Law § 12[2];  Soho Ctr. for Arts & Educ. v. Church of St. Anthony of Padua, 146 A.D.2d 407, 411, 541 N.Y.S.2d 396 [1st Dept. 1989] ).

Furthermore, plaintiff's claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was properly dismissed as duplicative of its breach of contract claim (see Logan Advisors, LLC v. Patriarch Partners, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 440, 443, 879 N.Y.S.2d 463 [1st Dept. 2009] ), and the claim for unjust enrichment was precluded by the existence of a valid express agreement with regard to the same subject matter (see MG W. 100 LLC v. St. Michael's Prot. Episcopal Church, 127 A.D.3d 624, 626, 8 N.Y.S.3d 299 [1st Dept. 2015] ).