Piccone v. Chamberlain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piccone v. Chamberlain

271 A.D.2d 667, 707 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4520

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 667 (Piccone v. Chamberlain) 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

Piccone v. Chamberlain, 271 A.D.2d 667, 707 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to impose a constructive trust, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated April 22, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The essential elements needed for the imposition of a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment (see, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233; Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119; Weiss v Weiss, 186 AD2d 247)” (Ostreicher v Ostreicher, 238 AD2d 392, 393). In this case, the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiffs bare, conclusory, and unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the elements required for the imposition of a constructive trust (see, Gadman v Catalfo, 251 AD2d 370; Ostreicher v Ostreicher, supra). Sullivan, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to impose a constructive trust, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated April 22, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The essential elements needed for the imposition of a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment (see, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233; Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119; Weiss v Weiss, 186 AD2d 247)” (Ostreicher v Ostreicher, 238 AD2d 392, 393). In this case, the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiffs bare, conclusory, and unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the elements required for the imposition of a constructive trust (see, Gadman v Catalfo, 251 AD2d 370; Ostreicher v Ostreicher, supra). Sullivan, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 667, 707 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piccone-v-chamberlain-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack