Bean v. Estate of McKenna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bean v. Estate of McKenna

41 A.D.2d 1019, 344 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 24, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 1019 (Bean v. Estate of McKenna) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bean v. Estate of McKenna, 41 A.D.2d 1019, 344 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

—Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the [1020]*1020conclusion of the Surrogate that there was sufficient evidence to impose a constructive trust upon certain securities and bank accounts held in the McKenna Estate (Matter of Wells, 36 A D 2d 471, affd. 29 N Y 2d 931). The record amply reveals the necessary four requirements for such imposition: i.e., (1) confidential relationship, (2) reliance upon a promise, (3) breach of that promise and (4) unjust enrichment as a result of it. We note, however, that the Surrogate incorrectly concluded that the decedent’s administrator had, by his testimony, waived the protection of CPLR 4519 and thereby “ opened the door ” for claimant Bean’s testimony regarding transactions with the decedent. Nonetheless, we conclude that the admission of this testimony was harmless in view of the fact that there was ample evidence from other witnesses as well as supporting documentary proof to establish the constructive trust. (Appeal from decree of Seneca County Surrogate’s Court impressing constructive trust.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Moule and Cardamone, JJ. [71 Mise 2d 512.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the [1020]*1020conclusion of the Surrogate that there was sufficient evidence to impose a constructive trust upon certain securities and bank accounts held in the McKenna Estate (Matter of Wells, 36 A D 2d 471, affd. 29 N Y 2d 931). The record amply reveals the necessary four requirements for such imposition: i.e., (1) confidential relationship, (2) reliance upon a promise, (3) breach of that promise and (4) unjust enrichment as a result of it. We note, however, that the Surrogate incorrectly concluded that the decedent’s administrator had, by his testimony, waived the protection of CPLR 4519 and thereby “ opened the door ” for claimant Bean’s testimony regarding transactions with the decedent. Nonetheless, we conclude that the admission of this testimony was harmless in view of the fact that there was ample evidence from other witnesses as well as supporting documentary proof to establish the constructive trust. (Appeal from decree of Seneca County Surrogate’s Court impressing constructive trust.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Moule and Cardamone, JJ. [71 Mise 2d 512.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 1019, 344 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bean-v-estate-of-mckenna-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack