Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MEI YUN CHEN, respondent, v. MEI WAN KAO, appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust upon certain real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Geller, J.H.O.), dated December 2, 2010, as, upon a decision of the same court dated July 28, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her, awarding the plaintiff a one-half interest in the subject property.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In order to obtain the remedy of a constructive trust, a plaintiff generally is required to demonstrate four factors: (1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the parties, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer of some asset in reliance upon the promise, and (4) unjust enrichment flowing from the breach of the promise (see McGrath v. Hilding, 41 N.Y.2d 625, 629; Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119, 121). To achieve equity and avoid unjust enrichment, the courts apply these factors flexibly rather than rigidly (see Simonds v. Simonds, 45 N.Y.2d 233, 241; Moak v. Raynor, 28 AD3d 900, 902).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at trial supported the Supreme Court's finding that all of the elements for the imposition of a constructive trust had been satisfied, since there was proof that a relationship of trust and dependence existed between the plaintiff and the defendant due to their close friendship lasting over 20 years and prior financial dealings, that the defendant promised to hold the plaintiff's one-half interest in the subject property, that the plaintiff transferred money to the defendant in reliance on that promise, and that the defendant thereafter denied the plaintiff's one-half ownership of the property and sought to have her evicted from the subject apartment. In view of this evidence, there is no basis upon which to disturb the Supreme Court's judgment (see Watson v. Pascal, 65 AD3d 1333; Squiciarino v. Squiciarino, 35 AD3d 844; Byrd v. Brown, 208 A.D.2d 582).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 18, 2012
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)