Opinion
February 10, 1999
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Summary Judgment.
Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Balio, JJ.
Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant, R.A.C. Holding, Inc., d/b/a Americar Rental Systems (Americar), moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment. Because issue has been joined, the proper focus is on whether plaintiff, City of Syracuse (City), "has a cause of action, not whether [it] has stated one" ( Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275).
In April 1995 the City enacted, ordinances requiring car rental and valet parking businesses that accessed the City's Hancock International Airport to acquire a permit for such access. The ordinance also required the payment of a fee in connection with such permits. Americar refused to obtain a permit or to pay the permit fee and continued to access the airport in connection with its car rental and valet parking business during its negotiations with the City. In May 1997 the City insisted that Americar obtain a permit, and the parties entered into an agreement whereby Americar paid under protest an amount the City maintained was due and owing from April 1995 to May 1997, and the City agreed that Americar could litigate "all issues related to the payment of this money, as well as any other issues related to the validity or reasonableness of the 1995 ordinance." Americar commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the validity of the permit agreement and seeking recoupment of the money paid under protest. Supreme Court converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action, declared the permit agreement invalid and awarded Americar the money it had paid under protest. We affirmed that part of the judgment granting recoupment. We modified the judgment, however, by declaring that Americar is estopped from challenging the validity of the 1997 permit agreements under which it has continued its operations since May 1997 ( R.A.C. Holding v. City of Syracuse, 258 A.D.2d 877 [decided herewith]). Because the permit agreement is null and void ab initio with respect to the period from April 1995 to May 1997, the City had no right to payment of the permit fee during that period. The essence of unjust enrichment is that one party has received money or a benefit at the expense of another ( see, Lake Erie Distribs. v. Martlet Importing Co., 221 A.D.2d 954, 956; Waldman v. Englishtown Sportswear, 92 A.D.2d 833, 836). In the circumstances of this case, Americar did not receive a benefit at the expense of the City because the City had no right to compensation from April 1995 to May 1997. Thus, the court should have granted Americar's motion and dismissed the complaint.