Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, the Supreme Court properly denied his application to impose a constructive trust on realty located at 68 East Hudson Street in Long Beach, New York, and owned by the defendant. Generally, a constructive trust may be imposed when property has been acquired under such circumstances that the holder of legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest therein (see, Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119, 121). To establish a constructive trust, it must be shown that there exists (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance therein, (4) a breach of the promise, and (5) unjust enrichment (see, Scivoletti v Marsala, 97 A.D.2d 401, 402, affd 61 N.Y.2d 806). A constructive trust will be imposed where property is parted with on faith of an oral or implied promise to reconvey "but none may be imposed by one who has no interest in the property prior to obtaining a promise" to reconvey (Matter of Wells, 36 A.D.2d 471, 474, affd 29 N.Y.2d 931; see also, Washington v Defense, 149 A.D.2d 697). Since the plaintiff's testimony failed to establish such an interest, his application for the imposition of a constructive trust was properly denied.
We have examined the remaining arguments raised by the parties and find them to be without merit (see, Price v Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8; Wegman v Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220; cf., Lenczycki v Lenczycki, 152 A.D.2d 621, 624). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.