because of the Statute of Frauds is, to say the least, bizarre.
5. Under New York law, in order to recover damages under a quantum meruit theory, a plaintiff must show "(1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services." Bauman Associates, Inc. v. H & M International Transport, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 479, 483-84, 567 N.Y.S.2d 404, 408 (1st Dep't 1991). See also Umscheid v. Simnacher, 106 A.D.2d 380, 382, 482 N.Y.S.2d 295, 298 (2d Dep't 1988); Longo v. Shore & Reich, Ltd., 25 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 1994); Weinreich v. Sandhaus, 850 F. Supp. 1169, 1183 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), amended in part on other grounds, 156 F.R.D. 60 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Plaintiff is not entitled under quantum meruit to enjoy the benefit of the contract; he is only entitled to be restored to the position he was in before the contract was performed. Farash, 59 N.Y.2d at 503, 465 N.Y.S.2d at 918, 452 N.E.2d at 1246.
6. Plaintiff is entitled to recover quantum meruit damages even if the defendant does not benefit from plaintiff's services. Id. at 506; 465 N.Y.2d at 920.
7. In its Findings of Fact, the court has found that plaintiff has established each of the four elements listed in Conclusion of Law P5, supra, Findings of Fact PP22, 28-33, 35, supra, and has concluded that the reasonable value of plaintiff's services from October 1992 until February 1993 is $ 13,908.88. Findings of Fact P35, supra. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any work which he did prior to October of 1993, since it was far from clear at that time that defendant would pay him. Thus he could hardly claim an expectation of compensation, as is required to recover damages under a quantum meruit theory. See Conclusion of Law P5. It was only after an explicit promise of payment was made in October of 1992 that plaintiff can justifiably claim that he expended time and effort expecting to be compensated.
8. Thus, plaintiff's work in preparing Guest*Star was worth $ 13,908.88. However, because he is entitled to receive $ 5000 by virtue of the remedy available under contract law (as limited by the relevant Statute of Frauds provision, § 1-206(1) of the New York Uniform Commercial Code), the amount that plaintiff would need to be restored to the position he was in prior to his entering the contract would be $ 8,908.88.
9. The court has not found any fraudulent behavior on the part of defendant Bianchi and defendant Alitalia. There is no evidence to support the notion that defendant Bianchi or defendant Alitalia intentionally deceived plaintiff in any manner. Under these circumstances, a cause of action for fraud cannot lie.
For the foregoing reasons, judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $ 13,908.88.
Dated: August 18, 1997
New York, New York
Constance Baker Motley
United States District Judge
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.