| Hall v McDonald |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01435 [115 AD3d 646] |
| March 5, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Dionne Hall, Respondent-Appellant, v KeishaMcDonald et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
—[*1] Audrey A. Thomas, Rosedale, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on certain real property, thedefendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered March 28, 2012, as, upon a decision of thesame court made after a nonjury trial, adjudged the plaintiff and her husband the rightfulowners of the subject property, directed the defendant Keisha McDonald to reconvey thesubject property to the plaintiff and her husband, and, in effect, conditioned the plaintiff'spayment of the sum of $51,000 to the defendant Keisha McDonald upon that defendant'sreconveyance of the subject property to the plaintiff and her husband, and the plaintiffcross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same judgment as directed herto pay the defendant Keisha McDonald the sum of $51,000.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts, and thecomplaint is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it isfurther,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
"The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential or fiduciary relationship, apromise, a transfer in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment" (Williams v Eason, 49 AD3d866, 868 [2008]; see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121 [1976]; O'Brien v Dalessandro, 43AD3d 1123, 1124 [2007]). The ultimate purpose of a constructive trust is to preventunjust enrichment, and it will be imposed " '[w]hen property has been acquired in suchcircumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain thebeneficial interest' " (Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d at 121, quoting Beatty vGuggenheim Exploration Co., 225 NY 380, 386 [1919]; see Rowe v Kingston, 94AD3d 852, 853 [2012]).
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is asbroad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by thefacts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing andhearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town ofBedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Marini v [*2]Lombardo, 79AD3d 932, 933 [2010]).
Here, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the plaintiff satisfied her burden ofproof with respect to the elements necessary to impose a constructive trust. The plaintifffailed to demonstrate that the defendants would be unjustly enriched by retaining legaltitle to the subject premises (seeLosner v Cashline, L.P., 41 AD3d 789 [2007]; Potter v Davie, 275AD2d 961, 964 [2000]; see also McGrath v Hilding, 41 NY2d 625, 629 [1977]).Thus, the Supreme Court erred in adjudging the plaintiff and her husband the rightfulowners of the subject property and directing the defendant Keisha McDonald to reconveyand transfer the deed to the subject property to the plaintiff and her husband.
However, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendant Keisha McDonalddamages in the amount of $51,000 on her counterclaim as, despite the plaintiff'scontention otherwise, those damages were sufficiently established. Dillon, J.P., Balkin,Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.