Salerno v. Salerno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salerno v. Salerno

241 A.D.2d 488, 661 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7389

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 488 (Salerno v. Salerno) 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

Salerno v. Salerno, 241 A.D.2d 488, 661 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for the imposition of a constructive trust and related injunctive relief, (1) the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered March 27, 1996, which, after a hearing, declared that the plaintiff Theresa Salerno had a life estate in the premises at issue as subject to certain conditions, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and otherwise dismissed the complaint, and (2) the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as declared that the plaintiff had a life estate in the premises.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly found that the defendant’s title to the property at issue was subject to the right of the plaintiff Theresa Salerno to remain there for life. We find that the requisite elements to sustain a claim for the imposition of a constructive trust were present, i.e., “(1) a confidential or fidu[489]*489clary relation, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon and (4) unjust enrichment” (Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121; see, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233). Further, we find no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s imposition of certain conditions to the interest of the plaintiff Theresa Salerno. Therefore, we affirm.

The remaining arguments are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for the imposition of a constructive trust and related injunctive relief, (1) the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered March 27, 1996, which, after a hearing, declared that the plaintiff Theresa Salerno had a life estate in the premises at issue as subject to certain conditions, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and otherwise dismissed the complaint, and (2) the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as declared that the plaintiff had a life estate in the premises.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly found that the defendant’s title to the property at issue was subject to the right of the plaintiff Theresa Salerno to remain there for life. We find that the requisite elements to sustain a claim for the imposition of a constructive trust were present, i.e., “(1) a confidential or fidu[489]*489clary relation, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon and (4) unjust enrichment” (Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121; see, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233). Further, we find no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s imposition of certain conditions to the interest of the plaintiff Theresa Salerno. Therefore, we affirm.

The remaining arguments are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 488, 661 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salerno-v-salerno-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack