You are here: / / Elements of a Constructive Trust Not Adequately Pled
,

Elements of a Constructive Trust Not Adequately Pled

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint did not state a cause of action for a constructive trust.  Plaintiff alleged she was 50% owner of rental property ostensibly owned by the defendant, her uncle, based upon her uncle’s sharing the rent with plaintiff’s father (now deceased).  The Second Department noted that there was no allegation of a promise running from the uncle to the plaintiff, an essential element of a constructive trust.  The court further noted that plaintiff’s claim she inherited her father’s 50% interest in the property must be adjudicated as part of her father’s estate proceedings:

In general, a constructive trust may be appropriate in situations ” [w]hen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” … . The necessary elements for imposition of a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance on that promise, and (4) unjust enrichment … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff’s complaint, as amplified by her affidavit, does not adequately plead a cause of action to impose a constructive trust on the … property. While a confidential relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant as uncle and niece, the complaint does not allege the existence of a promise between the plaintiff and the defendant, or a transfer in reliance upon a promise between them.

Further, … the plaintiff’s allegations in support of a theory that she should be deemed a 50% owner of the … property do not adequately plead the elements of a constructive trust. Her claim of entitlement is based on the laws of inheritance, and must be pursued by the executor or administrator of her father’s estate … . Igneri v Igneri, 2015 NY Slip Op 01419, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

You might also like
THE PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT A BUS STOP, WHERE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE AREA SAFE, AS OPPOSED TO THE SIDEWALK ABUTTING DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY, WHERE DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF GENERAL INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE-ON-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Plaintiff’s Recovery for On-the-Job Injury Against “Alter Ego” of Plaintiff’s Employer Limited to Workers’ Compensation
PRESUMABLY THE ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY CHARGES STEMMED FROM THE THEFT OF THE TAXI CAB (THE FACTS ARE NOT EXPLAINED); THE ACQUITTAL OF UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE RENDERED THE ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY CONVICTIONS REPUGNANT (SECOND DEPT).
Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment Must Allege a Basis for the Existence of a Duty to Disclose
AN AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE ALLOWING A LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL ABNORMALITY NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE SORA RISK LEVEL GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT).
THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined No-Fault Carriers Not Required to Pay “Facility Fees” for “Office-Based”...