Silvestri v. Ferrara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silvestri v. Ferrara

270 A.D.2d 19, 703 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2254

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 19 (Silvestri v. Ferrara) 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

Silvestri v. Ferrara, 270 A.D.2d 19, 703 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 2, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, declared that defendants own a certain restaurant subject to a constructive trust in plaintiffs favor for a one-third interest in the business and that plaintiffs claim for an accounting should be heard by a Judicial Hearing Officer, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 4, 1999, appointing a receiver for the subject restaurant, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s essential factual conclusions are sufficiently supported by reliable evidence (see, Daley v Related Cos., 236 AD2d 340, lv denied 90 NY2d 803). Defendants’ factual contentions amount to nothing more than a self-serving view of the evidence and, as such, afford “ ‘no reason to disturb’ ” the trial court’s findings (Castillo v New York City Hous. Auth., 266 AD2d 55). Plaintiff proved a sufficiently definite oral joint venture agreement (see, Roper v Heller-Miller Realty Corp., 167 AD2d 457), and the circumstances of this case justified imposition of a constructive trust. The appointment of a receiver constituted a provident exercise of discretion (see, Rosan v Vassell, 257 AD2d 436, 437). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 2, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, declared that defendants own a certain restaurant subject to a constructive trust in plaintiffs favor for a one-third interest in the business and that plaintiffs claim for an accounting should be heard by a Judicial Hearing Officer, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 4, 1999, appointing a receiver for the subject restaurant, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s essential factual conclusions are sufficiently supported by reliable evidence (see, Daley v Related Cos., 236 AD2d 340, lv denied 90 NY2d 803). Defendants’ factual contentions amount to nothing more than a self-serving view of the evidence and, as such, afford “ ‘no reason to disturb’ ” the trial court’s findings (Castillo v New York City Hous. Auth., 266 AD2d 55). Plaintiff proved a sufficiently definite oral joint venture agreement (see, Roper v Heller-Miller Realty Corp., 167 AD2d 457), and the circumstances of this case justified imposition of a constructive trust. The appointment of a receiver constituted a provident exercise of discretion (see, Rosan v Vassell, 257 AD2d 436, 437). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 19, 703 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silvestri-v-ferrara-nyappdiv-2000.