Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Viewing the pertinent allegations of the second cause of action of the complaint most liberally in favor of the plaintiff, we conclude that it does not state a cause of action in recognizable form (see, World Wide Adj. Bur. v. Gordon Co., 111 A.D.2d 98, 99). Although the plaintiff seeks to recover on a theory of unjust enrichment, his second cause of action does not contain the necessary allegations establishing that the respondent unjustly received something of value at the expense of the plaintiff (see, McGrath v. Hilding, 41 N.Y.2d 625, 629; Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v. State of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 415, 421, remittitur amended 31 N.Y.2d 678, cert denied 414 U.S. 829; Alko Mfg. Corp. v. Neptune Meter Co., 20 A.D.2d 635, affd 16 N.Y.2d 777). Bracken, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.