The Surrogate correctly found that the alleged oral agreement for the making of a testamentary disposition was unenforceable, since an agreement to make a testamentary disposition of any kind must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged (EPTL 13-2.1 [a] [2]); Dombrowski v. Somers, 41 N.Y.2d 858, 859).
The Surrogate also properly found that claimant failed to establish grounds for imposition of a constructive trust, since there was no evidence that he had an interest in the property at the time it was transferred (see, Matter of Wells' Will, 36 A.D.2d 471, 474, aff'd 29 N.Y.2d 931), or that there existed a confidential relationship between the parties to the purported agreement (see, Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119), or that the alleged promise was sufficiently specific to be enforceable (see, Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen, Inc. v. Schumacher, 52 N.Y.2d 105), or that the transferor relied on decedent's alleged promise to bequeath the subject securities to claimant when he transferred the securities to the decedent (see, Sharp v. Kosmalski, supra).
We have considered claimant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.