Fedziuk v. Conroy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fedziuk v. Conroy

199 A.D.2d 300, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11823

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 300 (Fedziuk v. Conroy) 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

Fedziuk v. Conroy, 199 A.D.2d 300, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions for, inter alia, the imposition of a constructive trust, the defendant Thomas Conroy appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated September 16, 1991, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There are questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff had an interest in the real property in question prior to the defendant’s alleged promise to convey it to her sufficient for the imposition of a constructive trust, and thus the court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Crown Realty Co. v Crown Hgts. Jewish Community Council, 175 AD2d 151; Gottlieb v Gottlieb, 166 AD2d 413; Washington v Defense, 149 AD2d 697; Lester v Zommer, 147 AD2d 340).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions for, inter alia, the imposition of a constructive trust, the defendant Thomas Conroy appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated September 16, 1991, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There are questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff had an interest in the real property in question prior to the defendant’s alleged promise to convey it to her sufficient for the imposition of a constructive trust, and thus the court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Crown Realty Co. v Crown Hgts. Jewish Community Council, 175 AD2d 151; Gottlieb v Gottlieb, 166 AD2d 413; Washington v Defense, 149 AD2d 697; Lester v Zommer, 147 AD2d 340).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 300, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fedziuk-v-conroy-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack