From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. Dushko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2004
7 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-02339.

Decided May 10, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated January 28, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, in effect, dismissed the complaint, and imposed a constructive trust in favor of the nonparties Adrian Padro, Michael Anthony Padro, and Sabrina Marie Padro.

Elliott S. Martin, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas A. Pepe, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Maurice A. Reichman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, the facts, and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting the first through seventh decretal paragraphs thereof, inter alia, imposing a constructive trust in favor of the nonparties Adrian Padro, Michael Anthony Padro, and Sabrina Marie Padro; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A court's determination after a nonjury trial should be upheld if it is based on a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Vizzari v. Hernandez, 1 A.D.3d 431; Southampton Commons Assn. v. Southampton Assocs., 268 A.D.2d 580; Larkfield Landscapers v. Cron, 204 A.D.2d 407). Here, the trial court, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish, inter alia, the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship ( cf. Ellner v. Pope, 285 A.D.2d 624), or a promise to transfer title to the subject property ( cf. Matter of Steibel, 227 A.D.2d 408), determined that he was not entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust in his favor ( see generally Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119). Since this determination was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, the complaint was properly dismissed.

However, the trial court improperly proceeded to impose a constructive trust in favor of the nonparties, as this relief was never requested ( see Alexander Ave. Kosher Rest. Corp. v. Dragoon, 306 A.D.2d 298; Tuma v. Galgano, 303 A.D.2d 675; Harrington v. McManus, 303 A.D.2d 368; Matter of McAteer v. Condon, 296 A.D.2d 412; Matter of Irons v. Schneller, 258 A.D.2d 652).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., ADAMS, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Martinez v. Dushko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2004
7 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Martinez v. Dushko

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL MARTINEZ, appellant, v. MURIEL DUSHKO, respondent, ADRIAN PADRO, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 10, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 907

Citing Cases

Tuma v. Galgano

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to rescind a deed to certain real property, which deed she…

Smith v. Wood

The parties were never married, the children will no longer be residing with the mother, and this relief was…