| Mei Yun Chen v Mei Wan Kao |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05616 [97 AD3d 730] |
| July 18, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mei Yun Chen, Respondent, v Mei Wan Kao,Appellant. |
—[*1] Perry Ian Tischler, Bayside, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust upon certain real property, thedefendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court,Queens County (Geller, J.H.O.), dated December 2, 2010, as, upon a decision of the same courtdated July 28, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her,awarding the plaintiff a one-half interest in the subject property.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In order to obtain the remedy of a constructive trust, a plaintiff generally is required todemonstrate four factors: (1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the parties, (2) apromise, (3) a transfer of some asset in reliance upon the promise, and (4) unjust enrichmentflowing from the breach of the promise (see McGrath v Hilding, 41 NY2d 625, 629[1977]; Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121 [1976]). To achieve equity and avoidunjust enrichment, the courts apply these factors flexibly rather than rigidly (see Simonds vSimonds, 45 NY2d 233, 241 [1978]; Moak v Raynor, 28 AD3d 900, 902 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at trial supported the SupremeCourt's finding that all of the elements for the imposition of a constructive trust had beensatisfied, since there was proof that a relationship of trust and dependence existed between theplaintiff and the defendant due to their close friendship lasting over 20 years and prior financialdealings, that the defendant promised to hold the plaintiff's one-half interest in the subjectproperty, that the plaintiff transferred money to the defendant in reliance on that promise, andthat the defendant thereafter denied the plaintiff's one-half ownership of the property and soughtto have her evicted from the subject apartment. In view of this evidence, there is no basis uponwhich to disturb the Supreme Court's judgment (see Watson v Pascal, 65 AD3d 1333 [2009]; Squiciarino v Squiciarino, 35 AD3d844 [2006]; Byrd v Brown, 208 AD2d 582 [1994]). Angiolillo, J.P., Belen,Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.