Benanti v. Benanti

New York Court of Appeals

Benanti v. Benanti

385 N.E.2d 1042, 45 N.Y.2d 993, 413 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2404

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 28, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 385 N.E.2d 1042 (Benanti v. Benanti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benanti v. Benanti, 385 N.E.2d 1042, 45 N.Y.2d 993, 413 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2404 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs. The record demonstrates that neither plaintiff father nor defendant, his son, made any conscious decision with regard to legal title to the property in question or its equitable ownership. Both delegated that responsibility to the lawyer, who straightforwardly testified that he explained to the father that the effect of the deed was to pass indefeasible title to the son in order to accomplish the father’s purpose. Under the circumstances relief by constructive trust is unwarranted (see, generally, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 241-242; Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121). Thus, amendment of the pleadings to conform to the proof would have served no purpose.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs. The record demonstrates that neither plaintiff father nor defendant, his son, made any conscious decision with regard to legal title to the property in question or its equitable ownership. Both delegated that responsibility to the lawyer, who straightforwardly testified that he explained to the father that the effect of the deed was to pass indefeasible title to the son in order to accomplish the father’s purpose. Under the circumstances relief by constructive trust is unwarranted (see, generally, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 241-242; Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121). Thus, amendment of the pleadings to conform to the proof would have served no purpose.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 N.E.2d 1042, 45 N.Y.2d 993, 413 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benanti-v-benanti-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack