Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff damages for unjust enrichment following a bench trial. Since plaintiff received the benefits of the services defendants provided during the three months in question, plaintiff does not have an equitable claim to return of the sums paid for such services (see, Gargiulo v Oppenheim, 95 A.D.2d 484, 495, affd 63 N.Y.2d 843; McGrath v Hilding, 41 N.Y.2d 625, 629; Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v State of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 415, 421, mot to amend remittitur granted 31 N.Y.2d 678, rearg denied 31 N.Y.2d 709; Robinson v Paramount Pictures Corp., 112 A.D.2d 208). Also, unjust enrichment is not an appropriate remedy for recovery of the expenses of failed negotiations (see, Songbird Jet v Amax Inc., 581 F. Supp. 912, 926 [SD N Y 1984]).