Opinion
No. 2020-00077 Index No. 8422/14
01-31-2024
Christos Koumantaros, et al., respondents, v. Cindy Koumantaros, etc., appellant.
Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria, NY (James Wolff of counsel), for appellant. Andrew Moulinos, Astoria, NY, for respondents.
Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria, NY (James Wolff of counsel), for appellant.
Andrew Moulinos, Astoria, NY, for respondents.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P. LARA J. GENOVESI BARRY E. WARHIT LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Janice A. Taylor, J.), entered June 6, 2019. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of the same court dated February 14, 2019, made after a nonjury trial, declared that the defendant holds title to the subject property as a constructive trustee for the benefit of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the subject property.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In May 2014, the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the defendant, commenced this action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on certain real property located in Bayside (hereinafter the subject property). The subject property was purchased in August 2008, and title was vested to the plaintiff Klara Koumantaros and the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the parties had an oral agreement whereby the defendant agreed to hold title to the subject property as a convenience to the plaintiffs and to relinquish her interest to the plaintiff Christos Koumantaros upon his request. The defendant joined issue. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court issued a judgment, which, inter alia, declared that the defendant holds title to the subject property as a constructive trustee for the benefit of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the subject property. The defendant appeals.
"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's authority is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts" (Reingold v Bowins, 180 A.D.3d 722, 723; see Diaz v Diaz, 130 A.D.3d 560, 562). "Where the trial court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed to the trial court's credibility determinations" (Reingold v Bowins, 180 A.D.3d at 723 [internal quotation marks omitted]), "as the trial court was able to observe the demeanor and credibility of each witness" (Diaz v Diaz, 130 A.D.3d at 562).
"A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression" (Toobian v Golzad, 193 A.D.3d 778, 781 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Reingold v Bowins, 180 A.D.3d at 724). "When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him [or her] into a trustee" (Toobian v Golzad, 193 A.D.3d at 781 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The four factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the imposition of a constructive trust is warranted are the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer [of some asset] in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment" (id.; see Reingold v Bowins, 180 A.D.3d at 724). "[S]ince it is an equitable remedy, a constructive trust is necessarily flexible to accomplish its purpose" (Toobian v Golzad, 193 A.D.3d at 781 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kaprov v Stalinsky, 145 A.D.3d 869, 871-872).
Here, the Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiffs satisfied their burden of proof with respect to the elements necessary to impose a constructive trust. As familial relatives, the parties shared a confidential relationship (see Broderson v Parsons, 106 A.D.3d 677, 679; Reiner v Reiner, 100 A.D.2d 872, 874). Moreover, the evidence adduced at trial established that, although the subject property was titled in the defendant's name as a joint tenant with the plaintiff Klara Koumantaros, the plaintiffs expended their own money in order to purchase the subject property in reliance upon an agreement between the parties that the defendant would hold title as a convenience to the plaintiffs and would relinquish her interest to the plaintiff Christos Koumantaros upon his request (see Kaprov v Stalinsky, 145 A.D.3d at 872). Furthermore, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant would be unjustly enriched by retaining legal title (see id.; cf. Broderson v Parsons, 106 A.D.3d at 679).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from.
CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, WARHIT and WAN, JJ., concur.