## Facts

- Patricia McAneney died intestate on September 11, 2001.
- Margaret Cruz alleged she was Patricia’s same-sex domestic partner for more than 15 years and filed a statement of financial interest with the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF).
- James P. McAneney, Patricia’s brother and the estate’s personal representative, filed the VCF claim.
- The VCF initially calculated an award of about $278,087.42 as if Patricia were single and living in a one-person household.
- After learning of the domestic partnership, the Special Master indicated willingness to recalculate the economic-loss component and increase the award by $253,454, for a total of $531,541.42, to reflect the domestic partnership.
- Cruz alleged the VCF would pay the full increased award to James as personal representative only if he agreed in writing to distribute the increased portion to Cruz.
- James received the full $531,541.42 and allegedly refused to distribute any amount to Cruz, instead distributing the entire award to himself as the only surviving blood relative.
- Cruz sued asserting, among other theories, constructive trust and unjust enrichment; James moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under CPLR 3211(a)(7).
- The trial court denied dismissal, and James appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint, construed favorably to the plaintiff, sufficiently pleaded causes of action for constructive trust and unjust enrichment regarding the VCF award.
2. Whether equitable relief may be available where a personal representative allegedly obtained an increased VCF award attributable to a domestic partnership but kept the entire payment, notwithstanding intestacy rules that did not recognize the partner as a distributee.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying the CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss.
- Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court held the allegations supported cognizable theories of constructive trust and unjust enrichment.
- The court ruled dismissal at the pleading stage was premature and that factual development was needed regarding the alleged understanding or arrangement surrounding the increased portion of the award.

## Legal Principles

- On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, affords the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks only whether the facts fit within any cognizable legal theory.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy used to prevent unjust enrichment where property is held by one who, in equity and good conscience, should not be permitted to retain it.
- The commonly cited constructive-trust elements (confidential or fiduciary relationship, promise, transfer in reliance, and unjust enrichment) are guideposts rather than rigid requirements; equity may impose relief where the pleaded facts warrant it.
- Unjust enrichment may be stated where the defendant allegedly received and retained a benefit that, as a matter of equity and good conscience, should be returned or shared with the plaintiff.
- The remedial purpose and operation of a compensation scheme may inform equitable analysis where the defendant allegedly secured an increased payment based on the plaintiff’s relationship to the decedent and then excluded the plaintiff from any benefit.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the action to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged that the personal representative obtained and kept an increased VCF award attributable to the decedent’s domestic partnership, and that retaining the full amount could constitute unjust enrichment remediable through a constructive trust or related equitable relief.


Cruz v. McAneney, 31 A.D.3d 54, 816 N.Y.S.2d 486 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2006)