Ellner v. Pope

285 A.D.2d 624, 728 N.Y.S.2d 672, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7698
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 30, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 624 (Ellner v. Pope) 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
Ellner v. Pope, 285 A.D.2d 624, 728 N.Y.S.2d 672, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on certain real property, the defendant Francis Pope, a/k/a Dave Pope, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated January 3, 2001, which denied his [625]*625motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him and to vacate a notice of pendency filed against the subject real property.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, the action against the remaining defendants is severed, and the notice of pendency is vacated.

The appellant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting proof, inter alia, that there was no confidential and/or fiduciary relationship between him and the plaintiff. A confidential and/or fiduciary relationship is one of the four elements required to impose a constructive trust (see, Levy v Moran, 270 AD2d 314). Since the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of such a relationship, the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and vacate the notice of pendency on the subject property should have been granted (cf., Crown Realty Co. v Crown Hgts. Jewish Community Council, 175 AD2d 151, see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Old Republic National Title Insurance v. Cardinal Abstract Corp.
14 A.D.3d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Martinez v. Dushko
7 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Sokol v. Addison
293 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 A.D.2d 624, 728 N.Y.S.2d 672, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellner-v-pope-nyappdiv-2001.