Blue Wolf Group LLC v Gaiam, Inc.

[*1] Blue Wolf Group LLC v Gaiam, Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 50900(U) [27 Misc 3d 138(A)] Decided on May 20, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 20, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570111/10.

Blue Wolf Group LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Gaiam, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered June 29, 2009, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $17,250.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered June 29, 2009, reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Based upon the evidence adduced at trial and in the exercise of our authority to render the judgment warranted by the facts (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]), we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to recover from defendant under theories of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. The trial evidence was legally insufficient to establish which entity (if any) hired the individual that plaintiff claims it placed with defendant, and whether defendant was liable for the placement services plaintiff allegedly rendered. The only testimony of plaintiff's principal the lone trial witness indicating that the individual was hired by defendant was rank hearsay, and we decline to sustain a finding of liability which rests solely on such evidence. As we have previously noted, "[a] judicial award ... must rest upon competent evidence, and not on mere inference or surmise" (Rollock v Gerald Modell Inc., 169 AD2d 663 [1996] [emphasis added]).

In any event, even putting aside the obvious shortcomings of plaintiff's proof on liability, the trial evidence was insufficient to establish the reasonable value of the services plaintiff allegedly rendered (see generally Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP v Carucci, 63 AD3d 487 [2009]) or that defendant was enriched at plaintiff's expense (see generally Cruz v McAneney, 31 AD3d 54 [2006]). In this regard, plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence regarding the individual's putative salary (the only measure relied upon by plaintiff to determine its fee) or any other basis to calculate with reasonable certainty plaintiff's claimed damages.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 20, 2010