Josephine Catalano Property Lawsuit, New York Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Canceling 2003 Deed to Son

A New York mother has won a property fight that took more than two decades to reach its end. On November 4, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Rockland County judgment that imposed a constructive trust in favor of Josephine Catalano and rescinded the 2003 deed she signed over to her son, Carmine D. Catalano Jr., and her daughter-in-law, Denise Catalano.

The case, Catalano v Catalano (2026 NY Slip Op 06410), turns on a situation many families will recognize: a parent signs over property, a child promises to give it back if asked, nothing about that promise goes into the deed, and years later the child says no.

This article walks through what happened, what each court decided, and several details the shorter news reports left out, including the reserved life estate, the failed attempt to pause enforcement during the appeal, and the New York statutes and cases that sit behind the result.

Josephine Catalano Property Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Josephine Catalano v. Carmine D. Catalano Jr., et al.
Citation	2026 NY Slip Op 06410
Plaintiff	Josephine Catalano (the mother)
Defendants	Carmine D. Catalano Jr. (her son) and Denise Catalano (her daughter-in-law)
Property	Real property in Rockland County, New York
Deed at issue	Deed dated October 9, 2003
Interest Josephine kept	A life estate
Alleged promise	Carmine would give the title back whenever Josephine asked (oral, not in the deed)
Trial court	New York Supreme Court, Rockland County (Justice Keith J. Cornell)
Trial decision	November 21, 2024
Judgment entered	February 5, 2026
Appellate docket numbers	2025-00542 and 2026-01801
Stay motions denied	February 27, 2026
Appellate decision	November 4, 2026
Outcome	Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from; one bill of costs to Josephine
Remedy	Constructive trust imposed; 2003 deed rescinded; counterclaims dismissed
Settlement	None identified
Case type	Individual real estate and equitable dispute, not a class action

What Happened Between Josephine Catalano and Her Son

On October 9, 2003, Josephine Catalano signed a deed conveying property in Rockland County to her son Carmine and his wife Denise. She did not give up everything. The deed reserved a life estate for Josephine, which is a legal right to keep using and occupying the property for the rest of her life.

According to the case as the trial court accepted it, Josephine made the transfer because Carmine orally promised to reconvey the property to her whenever she asked. That promise never made it into the deed.

When Josephine eventually asked for the property back, Carmine and Denise refused. She sued in Supreme Court, Rockland County, in 2023, asking the court to impose a constructive trust and undo the transfer. Carmine and Denise responded with counterclaims.

The public court summaries do not describe the property’s type, size or value, and this article does not guess at them.

How the Trial Court Ruled in Catalano v Catalano

The case was tried without a jury before Justice Keith J. Cornell. In a decision dated November 21, 2024, the court sided with Josephine. A formal judgment followed on February 5, 2026. It imposed a constructive trust on the property, rescinded the October 9, 2003 deed, and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims.

The gap between the decision and the judgment, about 14 months, matters for the appeal. In New York, a written decision is not itself the final order that ends a case. The judgment is. That distinction shaped what the Second Department could and could not review, as explained below.

The Failed Attempt to Pause Enforcement During the Appeal

Carmine and Denise did not simply wait for the appeal to run its course. Two details from the Second Department’s own docket stand out.

First, the appellate court issued an order to show cause dated January 14, 2026, directing the parties to explain why the appeal from the trial court’s decision should not be dismissed. The ground was a basic rule of New York appellate practice: no appeal lies from a decision, only from an order or judgment. Once the February 5, 2026 judgment was entered, a second appeal (docket 2026-01801) covered it, and the court treated the briefs filed on the first appeal as also filed on the second.

Second, on February 27, 2026, the Second Department denied the defendants’ motions to stay enforcement of the trial court’s ruling while the appeal was pending. That order was signed by Justices Dillon, Brathwaite Nelson, Wan and Hom. In plain terms, the court refused to freeze the result in place for the couple. A party that wants enforcement paused during an appeal can ask for a stay under CPLR 5519(c), but the court has discretion, and here it said no.

What the Appeals Court Decided on November 4, 2026

The Second Department affirmed the judgment insofar as appealed from and awarded Josephine one bill of costs. Three points follow from that wording:

• The judgment stands. The constructive trust, the rescission of the 2003 deed and the dismissal of the counterclaims were all left in place.
• The ruling is limited to what was challenged. “Insofar as appealed from” means the court reviewed only the parts of the judgment Carmine and Denise actually challenged.
• Costs are separate from damages. A bill of costs covers statutory litigation costs on appeal. It is not a money judgment for the value of the property or for any other loss.

According to the research behind this article, the court rejected two main defense arguments: that an oral promise about real estate cannot support a constructive trust, and that Denise’s title could not be reached because the promise came from Carmine alone. The court’s full opinion should be read directly for its exact wording on both points.

Related article: Garth Brooks Lawsuit Update, Fifth Circuit Sends Jane Roe’s Anonymity Fight Back to Mississippi Judge

What Is a Constructive Trust Under New York Law?

A constructive trust is an equitable remedy. It is not something the parties agree to. A court imposes it to stop someone from keeping property that, in fairness, they should not be allowed to keep. New York courts describe the purpose as preventing unjust enrichment: it applies when property was acquired in circumstances where the person holding legal title may not in good conscience keep the benefit of it.

The Court of Appeals set out the familiar four factors in Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119 (1976), and the Second Department applies them regularly:

1. A confidential or fiduciary relationship
2. An express or implied promise
3. A transfer made in reliance on that promise
4. Unjust enrichment

The factors are guidelines rather than a rigid checklist. In Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233 (1978), the Court of Appeals stressed that the doctrine is flexible and exists to meet the demands of justice in the particular case. The Second Department has repeated that point in recent real estate cases, including trials from Kings County that ended in a constructive trust on a deed.

The person asking for the remedy carries a heavy burden. The elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard than the ordinary “more likely than not” used in most civil cases.

Why a Parent and Child Usually Satisfy the Confidential Relationship Element

The first element, a confidential or fiduciary relationship, is where parent-child transfers often succeed. New York courts have found the element satisfied by close family ties where one person places trust in another about money or property. The Second Department made the same point in a January 2026 decision, stating that a close familial and business relationship can be enough to allege a fiduciary relationship.

A mother who deeds property to her son and relies on his word is the textbook version of that trust.

Can an Oral Promise About Real Estate Be Enforced in New York?

This is the question most readers actually have, and the answer has two parts.

New York’s statute of frauds, General Obligations Law § 5-703, generally requires a writing to convey real property or an interest in it, and to enforce a contract for its sale. Express trusts in real property must also be in writing under EPTL 7-1.18. So a simple oral agreement to give land back is, on its own, usually not enforceable as a contract.

A constructive trust is different. It is not a contract. It is a remedy a court of equity imposes by operation of law to prevent unjust enrichment, and New York courts have long treated it as available even when the underlying promise was oral. That is why the defendants’ statute of frauds and parol evidence arguments did not end the case. The question was not whether a contract existed, but whether Carmine could fairly keep a parent’s property that she gave him because of a promise he made and then ignored.

That said, the oral promise still has to be proven, and the proof has to be clear and convincing. Courts look closely at the conversations, the timing, the relationship, and what the transferor gave up. The absence of a written promise makes the case harder to win, not impossible.

Why Denise Catalano’s Title Was Also Reached

Denise held title alongside Carmine, but the alleged promise came from Carmine. A common assumption is that a spouse who made no promise should be untouched.

The general rule runs the other way. A constructive trust follows the property, not just the person who made the promise. A holder who received title without paying value, or who took with notice of the circumstances, generally cannot claim the protection that New York’s recording statute (Real Property Law § 291) gives a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. In Catalano, the courts reached both defendants’ interests in the property. The reported summaries describe this as the point that distinguishes the case from a simple two-party promise dispute.

Why the Appeals Court Deferred to the Trial Judge

Because this was a nonjury trial, the Appellate Division had the power to review the facts for itself. But the standard is well settled: the appellate court gives substantial deference to the trial judge’s findings, especially on credibility, because the judge saw and heard the witnesses (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 (1983)).

In a case that turns on who said what in a family kitchen in 2003, credibility is the whole ballgame. That deference is a major reason the judgment survived.

Was the Lawsuit Filed Too Late? The Statute of Limitations Question

The deed is from 2003 and the lawsuit is from 2023. Many readers will wonder about the time limit.

A claim for a constructive trust is generally subject to a six-year limit under CPLR 213(1). The key point is when the clock starts. For a promise to reconvey, New York courts have held the claim generally accrues when the promisor repudiates the promise, meaning when the transferee refuses to return the property, rather than on the date of the original transfer (see Scheuer v Scheuer, 308 NY 213 (1955); see also Abakporo v Abakporo, 202 AD3d 646 (2021), discussing limitations on constructive trust claims).

If a parent waits twenty years without asking, the promise may never be repudiated. The practical lesson is that the refusal, not the deed, is usually what starts the clock. Whether a given claim is timely depends on its facts, and anyone with a deadline concern should speak to a New York attorney promptly.

Why Josephine’s Life Estate Matters

Several reports describe the case as a mother who “gave away” her property. That undersells what she did. By reserving a life estate, Josephine kept the right to use and occupy the property for life. What she transferred was the remainder interest: the right to own it after her life estate ended.

That structure is common in estate planning, and it comes with consequences beyond this lawsuit:

• Estate tax treatment. Under Internal Revenue Code § 2036, property in which a person keeps a life estate is generally included in that person’s taxable estate, which can give heirs a stepped-up tax basis under § 1014.
• Gift tax basis. A completed gift during life generally carries over the giver’s original basis to the recipient under § 1015, which can mean larger capital gains if the recipient later sells.
• Medicaid look-back. Transfers of property to children can trigger a penalty period when applying for nursing-home Medicaid, which looks back 60 months (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)). Retained life estates are treated specially under these rules, and an elder law attorney should review any plan before a deed is signed.

None of that was at issue in Catalano, but each is the kind of consequence that families overlook when they transfer a deed informally.

What the Catalano Decision Does and Does Not Mean

What it shows. A recorded deed is not the end of the story. If a transferor can prove a confidential relationship, a promise, reliance and unjust enrichment by clear and convincing evidence, a New York court of equity can undo the transfer, even when the promise was never written down.

What it does not mean. It does not make every unkept family promise enforceable. The ruling rests on the trial judge’s findings of fact after a bench trial, and it affirms a result rather than announcing a brand new rule. Courts have also refused constructive trusts where a plaintiff failed to allege a promise tied to the specific property or where the elements were not proven. Each case depends on its own record.

What is still open. As of the research date, the sources checked identified no further appellate review of the November 4, 2026 decision. Any further proceedings would concern carrying out the judgment, such as the recording of the court’s directions against the title.

Timeline of the Catalano v Catalano Case

Date	Event
October 9, 2003	Josephine deeds the property to Carmine and Denise, reserving a life estate
2023	Josephine sues in Supreme Court, Rockland County
November 21, 2024	Trial court issues its decision after a nonjury trial
January 14, 2026	Second Department orders the parties to show cause on dismissing the appeal from the decision
February 5, 2026	Final judgment entered: constructive trust imposed, deed rescinded, counterclaims dismissed
February 27, 2026	Second Department denies defendants’ motions to stay enforcement
November 4, 2026	Second Department affirms the judgment insofar as appealed from; costs to Josephine

How to Protect a Family Property Transfer in New York

The case is a litigation story, but its real value is as a warning. Families who want a parent’s property to stay protected can reduce the risk of a dispute like this one by taking steps at the start:

• Put the promise in writing. If a transfer comes with a condition, such as returning title on request, document it in a signed agreement, ideally reviewed by a lawyer, rather than relying on conversation.
• Consider the right vehicle. A revocable trust, an irrevocable trust or a deed with a reserved life estate each carry different tax, Medicaid and control consequences. They are not interchangeable.
• Keep records. Emails, texts, letters and witness accounts from the time of the transfer can decide a case years later.
• Act when the promise is broken. Because the claim usually starts running when the transferee refuses, a parent who is refused should talk to a lawyer soon rather than wait.
• Get advice before signing. A New York real estate or elder law attorney can check Medicaid, tax and title consequences before a deed is recorded.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Josephine Catalano Property Lawsuit

Who won the Josephine Catalano property lawsuit?

Josephine Catalano won. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Rockland County judgment on November 4, 2026, leaving in place the constructive trust, the rescission of the 2003 deed, and the dismissal of her son’s and daughter-in-law’s counterclaims.

What did Carmine Catalano promise his mother?

The trial court accepted that Carmine orally promised to give the property back to Josephine whenever she asked. The promise was not written into the October 9, 2003 deed.

Why did the court cancel the Catalano deed if it was signed and recorded?

A valid deed does not stop a New York court from imposing a constructive trust when the transferor proves a confidential relationship, a promise, reliance on the promise, and unjust enrichment by clear and convincing evidence.

Can a New York court enforce an oral promise to return real estate?

Not as a contract, because of the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703). But a court can impose a constructive trust as an equitable remedy even where the promise was oral, if the elements are proven.

Why was Denise Catalano’s title affected if only Carmine made the promise?

A constructive trust attaches to the property. A co-owner who took title without paying value, or with notice of the circumstances, generally cannot claim the protection given to a bona fide purchaser for value.

Did Josephine Catalano keep the right to live on the property?

Yes. The 2003 deed reserved a life estate for her, which gave her the right to use and occupy the property for life.

Did Carmine and Denise try to stop the judgment from being enforced?

Yes. The Second Department denied their motions to stay enforcement on February 27, 2026, before it decided the appeal on the merits.

Was there a settlement or money award in Catalano v Catalano?

No settlement was identified. The decision awarded Josephine one bill of costs on appeal. This is an individual property case, not a class action, so there is no claim process.

Can I read the full Catalano v Catalano decision?

Yes. The decision is published by the New York State Law Reporting Bureau as 2026 NY Slip Op 06410. The Second Department’s February 27, 2026 motion decision is posted on the court’s website under docket 2025-00542.

Sources

• Catalano v Catalano, 2026 NY Slip Op 06410 (App Div, 2d Dept, Nov. 4, 2026), New York State Law Reporting Bureau
• Catalano v Catalano, Decision & Order on Motion, Docket Nos. 2025-00542 and 2026-01801 (App Div, 2d Dept, Feb. 27, 2026), nycourts.gov
• Appellate Division, Second Department calendar listing for the appeals from the November 21, 2024 order and the February 5, 2026 judgment (Rockland County)
• General Obligations Law § 5-703; EPTL 7-1.18; CPLR 213(1); CPLR 5519(c); Real Property Law § 291
• Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119 (1976); Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233 (1978); Scheuer v Scheuer, 308 NY 213 (1955); Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 (1983)
• Abakporo v Abakporo, 202 AD3d 646 (2d Dept 2021)
• 26 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1015, 2036; 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the New York State Law Reporting Bureau’s published decision (2026 NY Slip Op 06410) and the Appellate Division, Second Department’s February 27, 2026 motion decision in the same case, as of November 7, 2026. Last Updated: November 7, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.