In re Azzinaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Azzinaro

13 A.D.3d 618, 786 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15664

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 618 (In re Azzinaro) 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

In re Azzinaro, 13 A.D.3d 618, 786 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a turnover proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law former § 81.44, Barbara Helkowski appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated October 3, 2002, which, inter alia, imposed a constructive trust.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly imposed a constructive trust as to the assets in question. Generally, before granting the equitable remedy of a constructive trust, four elements must be established: (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, express or implied, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment (see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121 [1976]; Djamoos v Djamoos, 153 AD2d 871 [1989]). The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to sustain the contention of the respondent Vincent J. Messina, Jr., the temporary guardian of the decedent, Henry Azzinaro, that the assets were transferred by Azzinaro and his wife to their daughter, Barbara Helkowski, in reliance upon Helkowski’s agreement to reconvey the assets to them upon request, and to rebut [619]*619Helkowski’s assertion that the assets were transferred to her as gifts (see Bastien v Bastien, 84 AD2d 800 [1981]; see also Nockelun v Sawicki, 197 AD2d 507 [1993]). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In a turnover proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law former § 81.44, Barbara Helkowski appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated October 3, 2002, which, inter alia, imposed a constructive trust.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly imposed a constructive trust as to the assets in question. Generally, before granting the equitable remedy of a constructive trust, four elements must be established: (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, express or implied, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment (see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121 [1976]; Djamoos v Djamoos, 153 AD2d 871 [1989]). The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to sustain the contention of the respondent Vincent J. Messina, Jr., the temporary guardian of the decedent, Henry Azzinaro, that the assets were transferred by Azzinaro and his wife to their daughter, Barbara Helkowski, in reliance upon Helkowski’s agreement to reconvey the assets to them upon request, and to rebut [619]*619Helkowski’s assertion that the assets were transferred to her as gifts (see Bastien v Bastien, 84 AD2d 800 [1981]; see also Nockelun v Sawicki, 197 AD2d 507 [1993]). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 618, 786 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-azzinaro-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack