MEI YUN CHEN, respondent,
v.
MEI WAN KAO, appellant.
Appellate Division, Second Department
2012
Mei Yun Chen v Mei Wan Kao
97 AD3d 730
Decided: July 18, 2012
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ARIEL E. BELEN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
Cooper, Paroff, Cooper & Cook, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Ira G. Cooper of counsel), for appellant. Perry Ian Tischler, Bayside, N.Y., for respondent.
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).
The case of Chen v Kao provided as part of a free educational service by J. Douglas Barics, attorney at law, for reference only. Cases such as Chen v Kao may be overruled by subsequent decisions, different judicial departments may have different controlling case law, and the level of the court deciding each case will determine whether it is controlling law or not. Chen v Kao is presented here to help illustrate how the law works in general, but for specific legal matters, an attorney should be consulted.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Mr. Barics at lawyer@jdbar.com or (631) 864-2600. For more articles and information, please visit www.jdbar.com.