Fraser v. Bascombe

2024 NY Slip Op 31992(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, Kings County
DecidedJune 4, 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 31992(U) (Fraser v. Bascombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, Kings County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fraser v. Bascombe, 2024 NY Slip Op 31992(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

Fraser v Bascombe 2024 NY Slip Op 31992(U) June 4, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 523155/2022 Judge: Peter P. Sweeney Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 523155/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

SUPREME COURT OFTHE S ATEOFNEWY0RK Index .. . No.: . . 523155/2022 . .

COUNTY OF KINGS; PART7• Motion Date: 5~20~24 ------. --- . --------------------------- ----------------------- --- ·-X Mot Seq, No.: 1 TERRENCE FRASER,

Plaintiff. -against- DECISION/ORDER

NICOLE BASCOMBE, TYRE WILSON & HEATHER WILSON,

Defendants: ------------- ··--------------·-------- -- ·-- ·----------------·-----X Thefollowing papers, \V ich are e-filed with NYC::.EF as items I 4-3 7, vvere read on this motion:.

In this action to qi.iiet titl~ to teal property located at62 Foui1tairt Avenuc .. Brooklyn, New ' .

York; Heather Wilson seeks a pfeliminary injunction. Pending thetesolution: of the action, she ' seeks to enjoin the plaintiff Tertjcnce Fraserfrom: i I i

I (a) perfoni1ing or continuing to pctform any v.'ork to a:lter, construct, dcntolish; destroy,. encl*11 bet, modify, renovate; or repair of any kind on or at the premises, i11c~uding any such work to the bu~lding, fixtures, and~or appm1enance~ at the Property; absent the written consent of Defendant .Heather . . Wilsbn. ····I .· ! (b) demolishing, !destroying, discarding, or removing any of the Defendant H~ather Wilson's documents, personal property, or .other items sfored at th!;! Property, including property belonging to Dcfet1dantlHeathcr Wilsonis mother, Norma \\'ilson, and i (c) impeding, rdtricting, or restraining Defendant Heather Wilson's acc4ss to, or use and occupancy of, any portion of the Ptoperty. !

Background: i . I Heather Wils011.. a deientiant . I in . this action. . . claims . . that her mother, . . .Norma Wilson . . and . the . plai nti ff1 Terrence Fraser, her 1~other' s cousin, purchased the real property at issue in th i,s action . . If . . . ii1 1985. Heather claims that "vlile the Deed dated May 29, 1985, lists only tht! plaintiffas a !

"'' ,, ' .. L...... .

1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 523155/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

grantee, her mother contributed o the purchase :price of the prope1ty as a coequal owner.

Heather claims that around the t me ofpurchase, that in order to documet1thcr mothe(s

ownership stake in the property, plaintiff had his lawyer send a letter to her mother on August

22, 1985. The letter states as follows: II Dear Ms. Wilson!: I This is to confir~ that as.of the date.listed above, August 22, 1985, you shar~ ari intetestiii the o,,-11er_ship and equity associated with the premises kllQ}Vn as 62 Fountam Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, with my client Terrence Fraser. You have all the normal interests associated wit~ t]~e O\.i.'ner.ship of this p1·01Jerty frorn this poii1t forward and said 111terest1s non-revocable.

The letter is \Vrit1.en pursuant to the express authorization of Terrence Fraser. Very truly yours, i /s ! CHARLES M. POWELL, JR. ! AGREED TO AJ}JD ACCEPTED:

Is 'I --w-· -~ ·~----~-~~-w~J~· 1 · ~-·--~-M~--~· -- NORMA WILSQN i Is .\ -------------~ -----,----------.------ .

TERRENCE FM.SER

' A copy or the letter is aiincxed ~s an exhibit to the motion i I i I . . . Heather claims that she ind her mother contributed to the household expenses at all relevanttimes~ Heather has beeklivingthere for four decades. NomiaWilsonpassed away 011 . . . . . . 'I April ZO; 202.0. Heather c,laiin tµat a portion oJher mother;s in,terest in th~ property passed to 'I . . her upon her death. Nt:Yrma's o~er heirs signed .s deed ort Jmi.e 1, 2022, granting to Heather all their interest in th~ pi"ope1ty.. I I I

.2

2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 523155/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

In response to the actio1~, Heather interposed an ans'i..ver asserting counterclaims, including acount~rc],aim aUcgiI gthat.her mother obtained an ownership interest in the property pursuant to the pnnc1ples ofco strnct1ve trust

According to Heather, tJc plaintiff is i10w attempting to perform construction on the first floor, in the area where she live , without hcrpennissio11. This prompted this motion.

Discussion:

The decision to grant a reliminazy injunction is a matter committed to the sound discretion oftheco11rt ·(Nelson. . l..P. I v. Ja,mace. 248 A.D.2d 448,. 448-449,. 668 N.YS.2d 936:. see Doe\'.. Axelrod. 73 N.Y.2d ?48, 750 1 536 N.Y.S.2d 44, 532 N.E.2d 1272; Automated fVastc

'f b1c_... ~o I .

Disposal. Inc. "·. A1id--Hudson ~1st~,. A._D.3d 1072) l 073, 857 N.Y.~.2d 648). In or~~r to demonstrate entitlement to a pre1hmmary mJunctton, the movant must estabhsh ( 1) a probab1hty of success on the merits,. (2) . the!danget . ! of irreparable . han11 in the absei1Ce of injunctive relief,· and (3) a balance ofthe eq uitiesi in favor ofthe movant (see lvfalter ofAdvcmcccl Digital Sec, Solutions, Inc; v: Samsung Tech~Fin Co .. Ltd., 53 A.D.Jd 612, 6J3, 862 N.Y.S.2d 551; /vlonh/1/k-., i Sfr.1r1s. Realty Gi·oup v. Deep Sfa Yacht & RacquetC!ub, 111 A.D.2d 909,910,491 N.Y.S.2d 32). A court evaluating a motio4 for a preliminary injllllctionmust be mindful that 'Tt]he purpose ofa preliminary injunction istolmaintain the status quo, not to detem1inethe ultimate rights of . i the parties'' . (AfCltter qf. WheaMn.fTMWFow·th ! Ave., LP v. Ne1v York City Dept: qfBldgs.. 65 A.D.3d 1051, 1052,886N.Y.S.fd41;seeCoi,mwL'h CmjJ. 1•. AlleyPondOinwrs Corp., 25 . .. . i . . . A.D3·d 642,643,808 N.Y.S.2di418). . . . . j

i ! With respectto the issue! of whether the defendant established a probability of success on I the merits of her claim ofconstftuctivetrust, ''[a] constructive trust is the formula through which . ! . the consciertceofeq1.1ity finds e¾prcssion'' (Toobian , .. Golzad, 193 AD.3d 778,. 781, 147 I N.Y.S.3d 61 [intenJal . quotationimarks I on1ittedJ; see Reingold v. !Jowins, 1.8.0 A.DJ.cl at 724, 119 N.Y.S.3d487). . "When . I . been acquired. in . such circum!ltances that the h9lder of the_ propertylhas .

legal tit.le may not in good cons¢ience retain the. beneficial interest,. equity converts him [or herJ I into a trustee'; (Toohian v. GoizJ1d, 193 AD.Jd at 781, l47N. Y.S.3d 61 [internal quotation . i . . hi.ai"ks .omitted]). "[S] ince it is a~ equitable remedy;· a constructive trust is 11ecessarily tlexi b le to

I • I ' ·-· .. -·······f·"···· 3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 523155/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

accomplish its purpose" (To'ohifn v. Gohad, 193 A.D.3d at· 781, 147 N. Y.S.3d 61 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see1{aprov v. S'tafinsky. 145 A.D.3d 869, 871---'872, 44 N.Y.S.Jd 123). I In general, to impose . a I!constructive trµst, four . factors must be established: (1).. a confidential o(fiduciary. relati~hship, r . (2) a promise, . (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4)

unjust enrichment (seeShorp t· Kosmolski, 40 N.Y.2d at 121,386 N.Y.S.2d 72,351 N.E.2d 721).

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

Related

Kaprov v. Stalinsky
2016 NY Slip Op 8509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Sharp v. Kosmalski
351 N.E.2d 721 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Simonds v. Simonds
380 N.E.2d 189 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Doe v. Axelrod
532 N.E.2d 1272 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
Advanced Digital Security Solutions, Inc. v. Samsung Techwin Co.
53 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Wheaton/TMW Fourth Avenue, LP v. New York City Department of Buildings
65 A.D.3d 1051 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Marini v. Lombardo
79 A.D.3d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Reiner v. Reiner
100 A.D.2d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Montauk-Star Island Realty Group, Inc. v. Deep Sea Yacht & Racquet Club, Inc.
111 A.D.2d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Nelson, L.P. v. Jannace
248 A.D.2d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 31992(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fraser-v-bascombe-nysupctkings-2024.