Summary
finding imposition of a constructive trust unwarranted where only ordinary relationship exists and there was no showing of actual unjust enrichment
Summary of this case from Peters v. UBS Trs. (Bah.) Ltd.Opinion
January 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
Under CPLR 5001 (b), interest is to be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed. Here, the fraudulent misrepresentation occurred when plaintiff was fraudulently induced to sign the patent agreements concerning his invention.
Contrary to defendants' contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence of fraudulent inducement was sufficient. Parol evidence was admissible and raised genuine factual issues (see, Fine Arts Enters. v. Levy, 149 A.D.2d 795, 796-797). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, imposition of a constructive trust on the royalties collected by defendants is not warranted. A constructive trust would require a showing of, inter alia, a confidential or fiduciary relationship and unjust enrichment (Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119, 121). Here the subject patent is no longer in the hands of parties over whom the court has personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff showed only an ordinary employer-employee relationship (see, Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, 73 N.Y.2d 183), and there is no showing of actual unjust enrichment, as defendants spent some $1,200,000 to earn only $500,000 and an unproven amount of royalties.
We have considered cross-appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.