Unjust enrichment is not unlike a utility infielder in baseball.  Its a nimble concept, ready to be applied and get in the game on short notice, and is willing to be place wherever it best serves the team.

 Comprehensive Mental Assessment & Med. Care, P.C. v Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum, PLLC  2015 NY Slip Op 05904  Decided on July 8, 2015  Appellate Division, Second Department. In this serial legal malpractice case, the Appellate Division reinstated an unjust enrichment claim.  It is not often that a UE claim surfaces in a legal malpractice case.

“The Supreme Court also erred in granting that branch of GKN’s motion which was to dismiss the sixth cause of action, alleging unjust enrichment. “To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, a party 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” (Citibank, N.A. v Walker, 12 AD3d 480, 481 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Marini v Lombardo, 79 AD3d 932, 934; Cruz v McAneney, 31 AD3d 54, 59). The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs paid GKN large sums of money, which purportedly represented legal fees associated with the work being performed on the plaintiffs’ behalf. The complaint further alleged that, in light of the allegations of, among other things, legal malpractice, GKN had been unjustly enriched by those payments and GKN’s retention of that money violated “fundamental principals of justice, equity, and good conscience.” GKN did not address those allegations on its motion to dismiss, other than to claim lawful entitlement to the money as fees earned and billed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging unjust enrichment (see CPLR 3211[a][7]).”