Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
AA Medical, P.C., appellant, v. Employee Medical Health Plan of Suffolk County, respondent.
Submitted—January 26, 2024
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Christopher Modelewski, J.), dated June 24, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (3), and (7) to dismiss the complaint. By order dated June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) for lack of standing and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment.
On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the Supreme Court improperly granted the subject branch of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff, however, advances no arguments concerning that portion of the order which granted that branch of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) for lack of standing. Inasmuch as the plaintiff does not challenge the court's determination that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a cause of action sounding in unjust enrichment, the plaintiff's contention that the cause of action was not subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) is academic (see Champion Mtge. Co. v. Antoine, 214 AD3d 698, 701; Visiko v. Fleming, 199 AD3d 1431, 1431). Thus, we affirm the order insofar as appealed from without reaching the plaintiff's arguments concerning CPLR 3211(a)(7) (see Matter of Lombardo v. Thomas, 53 AD3d 549).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MILLER, DOWLING and WAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2022–05405 (Index No. 621463 /21)
Decided: July 10, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)