SALEM v. MEDCO

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the pertinent allegations of the amended verified complaint most liberally in favor of the plaintiffs ( see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), we find that they do not state a cause of action ( see Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764, 765). Although the plaintiffs seek to recover on a theory of unjust enrichment, their cause of action does not contain the necessary allegation that the defendant unjustly received something of value at the expense of the plaintiffs ( see McGrath v Hilding, 41 NY2d 625, 629; Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v State of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421, cert denied 414 US 829; Stucklen v Kabro Assoc., 18 AD3d 461, 462-463; Stone v Solarbrite, Inc., 128 AD2d 696).