Ferguson v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferguson v. Murphy

273 A.D.2d 34, 708 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6315

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

DecidedJune 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 34 (Ferguson v. Murphy) 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

Ferguson v. Murphy, 273 A.D.2d 34, 708 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered May 21, 1999, which, in an action to impose a constructive trust, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied in light of plaintiff’s deposition testimony and affidavit describing the parties’ long-term relationship and long-range plans, including, in particular, plaintiff’s contributions in procuring and renovating the London apartment resulting in the profits that she asserts enabled defendant to purchase the New York apartment in which she claims an interest (see, Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119; Lester v Zimmer, 147 AD2d 340; Palazzo v Palazzo, 121 AD2d 261). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered May 21, 1999, which, in an action to impose a constructive trust, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied in light of plaintiff’s deposition testimony and affidavit describing the parties’ long-term relationship and long-range plans, including, in particular, plaintiff’s contributions in procuring and renovating the London apartment resulting in the profits that she asserts enabled defendant to purchase the New York apartment in which she claims an interest (see, Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119; Lester v Zimmer, 147 AD2d 340; Palazzo v Palazzo, 121 AD2d 261). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 34, 708 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-murphy-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack