Moo Wei Wong v. Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moo Wei Wong v. Wong

293 A.D.2d 387, 740 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4005

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 23, 2002·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered July 19, 2000, which, in an action to impose a constructive trust on real property, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, in granting defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, properly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to the equitable relief he sought. The real property whose reconveyance plaintiff sues for was admittedly alienated by plaintiff in the first instance to keep it beyond the reach of his former spouse in the matrimonial litigation. Under such circumstances, the relief sought was correctly denied as a matter of public policy to protect the integrity of the court (see, Jossel v Meyers, 212 AD2d 55, 57-58; Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358, lv denied 73 NY2d 702; Farino v Farino, 88 AD2d 902, 903).

We have examined plaintiffs remaining claims regarding the procedural aspects of defendants’ summary judgment motion and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered July 19, 2000, which, in an action to impose a constructive trust on real property, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, in granting defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, properly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to the equitable relief he sought. The real property whose reconveyance plaintiff sues for was admittedly alienated by plaintiff in the first instance to keep it beyond the reach of his former spouse in the matrimonial litigation. Under such circumstances, the relief sought was correctly denied as a matter of public policy to protect the integrity of the court (see, Jossel v Meyers, 212 AD2d 55, 57-58; Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358, lv denied 73 NY2d 702; Farino v Farino, 88 AD2d 902, 903).

We have examined plaintiffs remaining claims regarding the procedural aspects of defendants’ summary judgment motion and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Moo Wei Wong v. Wong, 293 A.D.2d 387, 740 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

293 A.D.2d 387 (Moo Wei Wong v. Wong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related