## Facts

- Two women lived together in a committed relationship for nearly 18 years and raised two children; each was the biological parent of one child, and each child was adopted by the other.
- Before having children, both parties worked full-time, earned salaries and retirement benefits, and pooled income to pay shared expenses.
- The parties purchased a home in 1996 as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.
- The plaintiff alleged an oral “partnership/joint venture” agreement under which she would reduce or leave full-time employment to provide childcare and household services in exchange for sharing in pooled assets, including the defendant’s retirement contributions and earnings.
- After the relationship ended in 2007, the plaintiff alleged the defendant refused to share retirement-related assets and other property consistent with the agreement.
- The plaintiff sued for, among other relief, damages for breach of the alleged oral agreement and several equitable remedies premised on the same alleged promise.
- The trial court dismissed certain causes of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7), including the breach-of-contract claim and related equitable claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim for breach of an oral cohabitation “partnership/joint venture” agreement to share assets (including retirement benefits) sufficient to survive a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion.
2. Whether the complaint stated equitable causes of action (including constructive trust and unjust enrichment) premised on the same alleged oral agreement to share retirement contributions and earnings.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division modified the order.
- It reinstated the breach-of-contract cause of action, holding the complaint adequately pleaded an enforceable agreement between unmarried cohabitants and the elements of breach of contract.
- It affirmed dismissal of the equitable causes of action predicated on the alleged oral agreement to share the defendant’s retirement contributions and earnings.
- The matter was remitted for further proceedings on the surviving contract claim.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts between unmarried cohabitants are not unenforceable solely because the parties lived together; such agreements are evaluated under ordinary contract rules and may be enforced if supported by lawful consideration not limited to sexual services.
- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, a breach-of-contract claim is sufficiently pleaded by alleging an agreement, consideration, the plaintiff’s performance, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damages.
- At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need not allege a detailed formula for distributing assets upon relationship termination if the complaint alleges an agreement to share assets and other facts supporting contractual definiteness.
- Equitable remedies such as constructive trust and unjust enrichment may be dismissed where the pleaded facts do not satisfy the requirements for equitable relief and the dispute is adequately addressed, on the allegations, by a contract theory.

## Conclusion

The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged an enforceable oral agreement to share assets in exchange for leaving full-time work and providing childcare, so the breach-of-contract claim could proceed, but it limited the case to contract by dismissing equitable claims seeking similar relief for alleged nonpayment of retirement-related benefits.


Dee v. Rakower, 112 A.D.3d 204, 976 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2013)