Certainly the court felt they needed more information:
"While these allegations will have to
be proved, further discovery and an eventual trial will sharpen
the allegations."
It does not indicate how the trial will go.
The court did grant 2 motions to dismiss and it may be of importance:
1."It is well settled that a claim of unjust enrichment is not
available when it duplicates or replaces a conventional contract
or tort claim (see, Corsello v. Verizon New York Inc., 18 NY3d
777, 944 NYS2d 732 [2012]). As the court noted "unjust
enrichment is not a catchall cause of action to be used when
others fail" (id). The plaintiff does not dispute this but
argues that unjust enrichment is available where there are
allegations the contract has been induced by fraud (Pramer S.C.A.
v. Abaolus International Corporation, 76 AD3d 89, 907 NYS2d 154
[1st Dept., 2010]). While that is true, the unjust enrichment
claim and the money had claim are duplicative of the fraud claim
(see, American Mayflower Life Insurance Company of New York v.
Moskowitz, 17 AD3d 289, 794 NYS2d 32 [Pt Dept., 2005]).
Therefore, the motion seeking to dismiss the third cause of
action for unjust enrichment and the fourth cause of action for
money had is granted."
2."Concerning the first element, it is well settled that an
investor does not maintain a fiduciary relationship and
consequently cannot maintain a cause of action for a constructive
trust (Gargano v. Morey, 165 AD3d 889, 86 NYS3d 595 [2d Dept.,
2018]). Therefore, the motion seeking to dismiss that cause of
action is granted."
