(internal citations omitted); Heaslip v. Barnshaw, 129 N.Y.S.2d 433, 435 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1954) ("A constructive trust bears much the same relation to an express trust that a quasi-contractual obligations bears to a contract. In the case of a constructive trust, as in the case of a quasi-contract, an obligation is imposed not because of the intention of the parties, but in order to prevent unjust enrichment.") (quoting 3 Scott on Trusts § 462.1 (1939) and Restatement, Restitution, § 160, comment a (1937)); cf. Oursler v. Armstrong, 10 N.Y.2d 385, 390, 223 N.Y.S.2d 477, 179 N.E.2d 489 (1961) ("Thus a constructive trust for the testamentary disposition of assets received from another is equated with a quasi contract implied in law, contrary to actual fact, as ... d .2d 147, 154 (2d Cir.1965)
holding that the statute of limitations cannot bar appellants claim that a constructive trust should be imposed  because a constructive trust is an equitable remedy and therefore not subject to the statute recognizing 10th circuits finding of breach of trust holding that breach of a contract concerning payment of a debt furnishes no basis for the finding of a constructive trust recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach