Ozkahveci v. Ozkahveci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ozkahveci v. Ozkahveci

91 A.D.2d 656, 457 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19522

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 656 (Ozkahveci v. Ozkahveci) 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

Ozkahveci v. Ozkahveci, 91 A.D.2d 656, 457 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Derounian, J.), dated February 17, 1981, as dismissed her counterclaim to impose a constructive trust on the marital [657]*657residence. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The fourth conclusion of law is deleted. While we affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from, we believe it necessary to point out one error made by the trial court. The court’s fourth conclusion of law states “[t]hat there is no corroborating documentary evidence to satisfy the Statute of Frauds with respect to the impression of a constructive trust on the marital premises by the defendant”. Clearly this is a misstatement of law. The Statute of Frauds does not apply to a constructive trust because such a trust, by its very nature, does not require a writing (see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119; Crane v Crane, 77 AD2d 858; Tomaino v Tomaina, 68 AD2d 267). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action, defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Derounian, J.), dated February 17, 1981, as dismissed her counterclaim to impose a constructive trust on the marital [657]*657residence. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The fourth conclusion of law is deleted. While we affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from, we believe it necessary to point out one error made by the trial court. The court’s fourth conclusion of law states “[t]hat there is no corroborating documentary evidence to satisfy the Statute of Frauds with respect to the impression of a constructive trust on the marital premises by the defendant”. Clearly this is a misstatement of law. The Statute of Frauds does not apply to a constructive trust because such a trust, by its very nature, does not require a writing (see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119; Crane v Crane, 77 AD2d 858; Tomaino v Tomaina, 68 AD2d 267). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 656, 457 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ozkahveci-v-ozkahveci-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack