Opinion
3196.
Decided March 23, 2004.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered October 27, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendant-respondent's motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's claims for equitable relief and canceling the notice of pendency filed by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clark E. Alpert for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Steven R. Lapidus for Defendants-Respondents.
Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Gonzalez, JJ.
Plaintiff corporation and defendant-respondent are 50% partners in the beneficiary plaintiff, a general partnership. Plaintiff seeks imposition of a constructive trust, declaratory and other equitable relief and reformation of a 2003 deed conveying certain property to defendant-respondent, on the theory that defendant-respondent usurped the general partnership's opportunity to purchase downtown Manhattan real estate. There is, however, no evidence that the general partnership had a "tangible expectancy" of purchasing the subject realty or that such purchase would have been consistent with its appropriately defined purpose ( see Alexander Alexander of New York, Inc. v. Fritzen, 147 A.D.2d 241, 247-248). Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that defendant breached a fiduciary duty to the general partnership ( cf. Schneidman v. Tollman, 190 A.D.2d 524, 525), or that there was an implied promise, an essential element of a demand for imposition of a constructive trust ( see Perelman v. Traube, 282 A.D.2d 270), or that the deed transferring the property to defendant should be reformed on the ground of constructive fraud ( cf. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Oseas, 261 A.D. 768, 771-772, affd 289 N.Y. 731). Summary judgment was, therefore, properly granted, and the notice of pendency properly canceled.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.