In Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173 [2011] the plaintiff sought to purchase a famous painting from the defendant so that it can later auction it for a profit (16 NY3d at 177). The defendant, an alleged art expert, wrote a letter to a third party estimating the painting's value at $15-$17 million but the letter did not disclose the defendant's ownership interest in the artwork (id.). After obtaining a copy of the letter, the plaintiff claimed to have relied on defendant's representations on valuation in ultimately purchasing the painting for $11.3 million (id.). $8.8 million of the sale proceeds went to defendant without plaintiff's knowledge (id.). When the plaintiff was unable to resell the painting for a price greater than or equal to its acquisition cost, it sued the defendant for unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the unjust enrichment claim due to "the lack of allegations that would indicate a relationship between the parties, or at least an awareness by the defendant of the plaintiff's existence" (id. at 182). The Court held that although the plaintiff was not required to allege privity, it had to assert a connection between the parties that was not too attenuated (id.), concluding that: "under the facts alleged, there are no indicia of an enrichment that was unjust where the pleadings failed to indicate a relationship between the parties that could have caused reliance or inducement. Without further allegations, the mere existence of a letter that happens to find a path to a prospective purchaser does not render this transaction one of equitable injustice requiring a remedy to balance a wrong. Without sufficient facts, conclusory allegations that fail to establish that a defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of a plaintiff warrant dismissal" (id. at 182-183).