CATALANO v. CATALANO (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on real property, the defendants appeal from (1) a purported order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Keith J. Cornell, J.), dated November 21, 2024, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated February 5, 2026.  The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon the purported order, made after a nonjury trial, imposed a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff on certain real property, rescinded a deed dated October 9, 2003, and dismissed the defendants' counterclaims.

By order to show cause dated January 14, 2026, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal from the purported order on the ground that no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr.  Corp., 100 AD2d 509) and/or that no appeal lies as of right from an order that is not the result of a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701) and leave to appeal has not been granted.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 27, 2026, the motion to dismiss the appeal from the purported order was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal from the purported order is granted;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the purported order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr.  Corp., 100 AD2d 509);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on certain real property located in Rockland County and to rescind a deed dated October 9, 2003 (hereinafter the 2003 deed).  The defendant Carmine D. Catalano, Jr., is the plaintiff's son, and the defendant Denise Catalano is the plaintiff's daughter-in-law.  The plaintiff alleged that she conveyed title to the property to the defendants by the 2003 deed, reserving a life estate for herself, in reliance on Carmine's oral promise to reconvey title to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff further alleged that when she demanded that the defendants return the property to her by reconveying title, they refused to do so.

After a nonjury trial, in a decision dated November 21, 2024, the Supreme Court found, among other things, that the plaintiff established the requisite elements of a constructive trust by clear and convincing evidence.  Thereafter, the court issued a judgment, upon the decision, inter alia, imposing a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff on the property, rescinding the 2003 deed, and dismissing the defendants' counterclaims.  The defendants appeal.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind in a close case that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (see Georgica Bldrs., Ltd v 136 Bishops Lane, LLC, 242 AD3d 1062;  Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP v Clark Dodge Holding, LLC, 225 AD3d 919, 920).  Where the trial court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed to the trial court's credibility determinations (see Ali v Rahaman, 224 AD3d 721, 722;  Diaz v Diaz, 130 AD3d 560, 562).

Generally, the imposition of a constructive trust is appropriate when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest (see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121;  Ali v Rahaman, 224 AD3d at 722).  The elements of a constructive trust are:  (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship;  (2) a promise;  (3) a transfer in reliance on the promise;  and (4) unjust enrichment (see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d at 121;  Corriette v Mele, 244 AD3d 679).  The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing each of the elements by clear and convincing evidence (see Ali v Rahaman, 224 AD3d at 722;  Diaz v Diaz, 130 AD3d at 561).  The doctrine of constructive trust is to be applied flexibly and broadly to satisfy the demands of justice (see Guambana v Molina, 242 AD3d 1186;  Kissane v Cashman, 217 AD3d 932;  Seidenfeld v Zaltz, 162 AD3d 929, 935).

Here, in light of the evidence presented at trial, and affording the Supreme Court's credibility determinations due deference, we find no basis to disturb the court's determination that the plaintiff established the necessary elements for the imposition of a constructive trust by clear and convincing evidence (see Guambana v Molina, 242 AD3d 1186;  Ali v Rahaman, 224 AD3d at 722).  The evidence at trial established that Carmine made an oral promise to reconvey the property to the plaintiff, on which the plaintiff relied in conveying title to the defendants, and that the defendants thereafter refused to reconvey the property to the plaintiff at her request (see Ali v Rahaman, 224 AD3d at 722).

Contrary to the defendants' contention, Denise's title was properly subject to a constructive trust (see Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 242;  Aubertine v Aubertine, 240 AD3d 1360, 1362;  Istel v Istel, 258 AD2d 506, 507).

Contrary to the defendants' additional contention, the imposition of a constructive trust on title to real property based upon an oral promise to reconvey was not improper pursuant to the statute of frauds or the parol evidence rule (see Pattison v Pattison, 301 NY 65;  Toobian v Golzad, 193 AD3d 778, 780).

Finally, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the defendants' counterclaims (see generally Auto Gobbler Parts, Inc. v Serpico, 109 AD3d 943, 944).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.