constructive trust doctrine in New York

2023The likelihood of success on the merits of the constructive trust claim is based on the credible allegation of deed theft, which defendants have not refuted through sworn statements or conclusive proof that there was consideration for the transfer ( see Sharp v Kosmalski , 40 NY2d 119, 122 [1976]).

2023The likelihood of success on the merits of the constructive trust claim is based on the credible allegation of deed theft, which defendants have not refuted through sworn statements or conclusive proof that there was consideration for the transfer ( see Sharp v Kosmalski , 40 NY2d 119, 122 [1976]).

2017The constructive trust claim is also an equitable remedy, the purpose of which is the "prevention of unjust enrichment" ( Simonds v Simonds , 45 NY2d 233, 242 [1978]).

2015While these factors are useful in many cases, the constructive trust doctrine is not rigidly limited (see Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 241 [1978]; Matter of Harold, 112 AD3d 929 , 931 [2013]).

2008“Thus, the required promise may be inferred where the totality of the transactions and the relations of the parties would render an express promise ‘superfluous’ (Sinclair v Purdy, 235 NY 245, 254 [1923]).

1984As the Court of Appeals has ofttimes cautioned in similar factual settings, “the conveyance herein should be interpreted ‘not literally or irrespective of its setting, but sensibly and broadly with all its human implications’ ” (Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 123 , quoting Sinclair v Purdy, 235 NY 245, 254 [Cardozo, J.]). 11 Courts have consistently viewed such a transaction with a suspicion that something more than a mere conveyance is involved (see Macauley v Smith, 132 NY 524 ; Finnegan v Brown, 43 AD2d 812 ; Johnson v Woodworth, 134 App Div 715 ; Trust & Deposit Co. v Verity, 33 Mise 4, a

2007While the constructive trust doctrine is broad in scope, and such trusts “will be erected whenever necessary to satisfy the demands of justice” (Latham v Father Divine, 299 NY 22, 27 [1949]; see Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 241 [1978]; Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 38 [2005]), the respondents established that they neither frustrated the decedent’s alleged intent to make a will (see Levy v Moran, 270 AD2d 314, 315 [2000]) nor engaged in any other conduct warranting the imposition of a constructive trust (see Latham v Father Divine, supra).

2007While the constructive trust doctrine is broad in scope, and such trusts “will be erected whenever necessary to satisfy the demands of justice” (Latham v Father Divine, 299 NY 22, 27 [1949]; see Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 241 [1978]; Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 38 [2005]), the respondents established that they neither frustrated the decedent’s alleged intent to make a will (see Levy v Moran, 270 AD2d 314, 315 [2000]) nor engaged in any other conduct warranting the imposition of a constructive trust (see Latham v Father Divine, supra).

2025By contrast, an action based on unjust enrichment, which would only result in a money judgment rather than a judicially imposed lien, requires the plaintiff to establish that: (1) the other party was enriched; (2) at the plaintiff's expense; and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered." ( Clark v Locey , 196 AD3d 794, 794 [3d Dept 2021]) Viewing plaintiff's allegations as true, he has adequately alleged a claim for unjust enrichment.

2025By contrast, an action based on unjust enrichment, which would only result in a money judgment rather than a judicially imposed lien, requires the plaintiff to establish that: (1) the other party was enriched; (2) at the plaintiff's expense; and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered." ( Clark v Locey , 196 AD3d 794, 794 [3d Dept 2021]) Viewing plaintiff's allegations as true, he has adequately alleged a claim for unjust enrichment.

2024Condominium minium, 201 AD3d 498 , 499 [1st Dept 2022]). “[T]hese factors, or elements, serve only as a guideline … because the constructive trust doctrine is given broad scope to respond to all human implications of a transaction in order to give expression to the conscience of equity and to satisfy the demands of justice” (Sanxhaku v Margetis, 151 AD3d 778, 779 [2d Dept 2017]).

2018However, "these factors should be applied flexibly" ( Cruz v McAneney , 31 AD3d at 59 ), bearing in mind that the doctrine of constructive trust is to be applied broadly "in response to all human implications of the transaction, to remedy whatever knavery ingenious wrongdoers can invent, to give expression to the conscience of equity, and to satisfy the demands of justice" ( Nastasi v Nastasi , 26 AD3d 32, 38 ; see Sanxhaku v Margetis , 151 AD3d at 779 ; Kaprov v Stalinsky , 145 AD3d at 871 ).

2023To the extent plaintiff advances new arguments as to those claims in his reply brief, and provides additional arguments about the constructive trust claim not addressed in his opening brief, we do not entertain them ( see Cassidy v Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. , 89 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2011]; Brady v Murray , 30 AD3d 186, 186-187 [1st Dept 2006]).

2023To the extent plaintiff advances new arguments as to those claims in his reply brief, and provides additional arguments about the constructive trust claim not addressed in his opening brief, we do not entertain them ( see Cassidy v Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. , 89 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2011]; Brady v Murray , 30 AD3d 186, 186-187 [1st Dept 2006]).

2023To the extent plaintiff advances new arguments as to those claims in his reply brief, and provides additional arguments about the constructive trust claim not addressed in his opening brief, we do not entertain them ( see Cassidy v Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. , 89 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2011]; Brady v Murray , 30 AD3d 186, 186-187 [1st Dept 2006]).

2023To the extent plaintiff advances new arguments as to those claims in his reply brief, and provides additional arguments about the constructive trust claim not addressed in his opening brief, we do not entertain them ( see Cassidy v Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. , 89 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2011]; Brady v Murray , 30 AD3d 186, 186-187 [1st Dept 2006]).

2023We agree with plaintiff that his claim for a constructive trust is not barred by res judicata based on the Civil Court's default judgment, which he has moved to vacate in any event ( see Doo Soon Chung , 170 AD2d at 233 ; cf. Langotsky v 537 Greenwich LLC , 45 AD3d 405, 405 [1st Dept 2007]).

2023We agree with plaintiff that his claim for a constructive trust is not barred by res judicata based on the Civil Court's default judgment, which he has moved to vacate in any event ( see Doo Soon Chung , 170 AD2d at 233 ; cf. Langotsky v 537 Greenwich LLC , 45 AD3d 405, 405 [1st Dept 2007]).

2026"Thus, although the elements of a constructive trust must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, the constructive trust doctrine is given broad scope to respond to all human implications of a transaction in order to give expression to the conscience of equity and to satisfy the demands of justice" (<i>Kaprov v Stalinsky</i>, 145 AD3d at 871-872 [alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted]; <i>see</i> <i>Ning Xiang Liu v Al Ming Chen</i>, 133 AD3d 644, 645 ).</p> <p>Here, in light of the evidence presented at trial and affording the Supreme Court's credibility determination

2020Accordingly, " the constructive trust doctrine is given broad scope to respond to all human implications of a transaction in order to give expression to the conscience of equity and to satisfy the demands of justice'" ( Kaprov v Stalinsky , 145 AD3d 869, 872 , quoting Ning Xiang Liu v Al Ming Chen , 133 AD3d 644, 645 ). " A constructive trust is an equitable remedy, and may be imposed when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'" ( Quadrozzi v Estate of Quadrozzi , 99 AD3d 688, 691 , quoting

2018However, "these factors should be applied flexibly" ( Cruz v McAneney , 31 AD3d at 59 ), bearing in mind that the doctrine of constructive trust is to be applied broadly "in response to all human implications of the transaction, to remedy whatever knavery ingenious wrongdoers can invent, to give expression to the conscience of equity, and to satisfy the demands of justice" ( Nastasi v Nastasi , 26 AD3d 32, 38 ; see Sanxhaku v Margetis , 151 AD3d at 779 ; Kaprov v Stalinsky , 145 AD3d at 871 ).

2007While the constructive trust doctrine is broad in scope, and such trusts “will be erected whenever necessary to satisfy the demands of justice” (Latham v Father Divine, 299 NY 22, 27 [1949]; see Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 241 [1978]; Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 38 [2005]), the respondents established that they neither frustrated the decedent’s alleged intent to make a will (see Levy v Moran, 270 AD2d 314, 315 [2000]) nor engaged in any other conduct warranting the imposition of a constructive trust (see Latham v Father Divine, supra).

2025As much is evident in the well-established maxim that the "elements are simply guidelines, . . . and a constructive trust, as an equitable remedy, may be imposed whenever justice so demands" ( Johnson v Lih , 216 AD2d 821, 823 [3d Dept 1995]; see Kissane v Cashman , 217 AD3d 932, 934 [2d Dept 2023]; Baker v Harrison , 180 AD3d at 1211 ; Mei Yun Chen v Mei Wan Kao , 97 AD3d 730, 730 [2d Dept 2012]).

2025As much is evident in the well-established maxim that the "elements are simply guidelines, . . . and a constructive trust, as an equitable remedy, may be imposed whenever justice so demands" ( Johnson v Lih , 216 AD2d 821, 823 [3d Dept 1995]; see Kissane v Cashman , 217 AD3d 932, 934 [2d Dept 2023]; Baker v Harrison , 180 AD3d at 1211 ; Mei Yun Chen v Mei Wan Kao , 97 AD3d 730, 730 [2d Dept 2012]).

2025As much is evident in the well-established maxim that the "elements are simply guidelines, . . . and a constructive trust, as an equitable remedy, may be imposed whenever justice so demands" ( Johnson v Lih , 216 AD2d 821, 823 [3d Dept 1995]; see Kissane v Cashman , 217 AD3d 932, 934 [2d Dept 2023]; Baker v Harrison , 180 AD3d at 1211 ; Mei Yun Chen v Mei Wan Kao , 97 AD3d 730, 730 [2d Dept 2012]).

2025In its order, the court denied the Gervera defendants' motion to dismiss "on the issue of 'unjust enrichment/constructive trust' to the extent that [p]laintiff claims to have relied upon an unfulfilled promise that he could 'live in his house until he dies.' " Neither the Gervera defendants nor Farm Credit appealed from the order and, as a result, we are precluded from granting them any affirmative relief ( see Matter of Baker Hall v City of Lackawanna Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 109 AD3d 1096 , 1097 [4th Dept 2013]; see generally Hecht v City of New York , 60 NY2d 57, 61 [1983]).

2024Moreover, counsel did not differentiate the fees for the constructive trust claim, which was the claim upon which Shomron was entitled to fees ( see Matter of Silverstein v Goodman , 113 AD3d 539, 540 [1st Dept 2014]).

2024Since the wrong that a court seeks to remedy by imposing a constructive trust is the wrongful retention of the transferred property — not the original transfer — this Court has recognized that the event that triggers the accrual of the cause of action is "the wrongful withholding" of the transferred property, such withholding constituting "the acts . . . upon which the claim of constructive trust is predicated" ( Kohan v Nehmadi , 130 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Sakow , 219 AD2d 479, 482 [1st Dept 1995]; see also Barone v Barone , 130 AD3

2024Since the wrong that a court seeks to remedy by imposing a constructive trust is the wrongful retention of the transferred property — not the original transfer — this Court has recognized that the event that triggers the accrual of the cause of action is "the wrongful withholding" of the transferred property, such withholding constituting "the acts . . . upon which the claim of constructive trust is predicated" ( Kohan v Nehmadi , 130 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Sakow , 219 AD2d 479, 482 [1st Dept 1995]; see also Barone v Barone , 130 AD3

2024Since the wrong that a court seeks to remedy by imposing a constructive trust is the wrongful retention of the transferred property — not the original transfer — this Court has recognized that the event that triggers the accrual of the cause of action is "the wrongful withholding" of the transferred property, such withholding constituting "the acts . . . upon which the claim of constructive trust is predicated" ( Kohan v Nehmadi , 130 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Sakow , 219 AD2d 479, 482 [1st Dept 1995]; see also Barone v Barone , 130 AD3