Bugarsky v. Marcantonio
| Decision Date | 19 October 1998 |
| Citation | 254 A.D.2d 384,678 N.Y.S.2d 737 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 8893 Heidi BUGARSKY, Respondent, v. Frank MARCANTONIO, et al., Defendants, Mark Varrichio, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Peter L. Contini and Michael L. Gangadeen of counsel), for appellant.
Sale, Groothuis & Hirsch, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeffrey D. Powell of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for replevin of certain stock certificates, and to recover damages for conversion and unjust enrichment, the defendant Mark Varrichio appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated July 24, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the motion in its entirety and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action insofar as asserted against the appellant; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of the causes of action for replevin and to recover damages for conversion insofar as asserted against him. There are triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff has a possessory right to the stock certificates at issue (see, Hofferman v. Simmons, 290 N.Y. 449, 455, 49 N.E.2d 523), and whether the appellant exercised "unauthorized dominion and control over the subject stock to the exclusion of the plaintiff's rights" (Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Glass, 75 A.D.2d 786, 428 N.Y.S.2d 246). However, the appellant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, as there was no showing that he obtained any benefit that in equity and good conscience he should not have obtained or possessed because it rightfully belonged to another (see, Mente v. Wenzel, 178 A.D.2d 705, 706, 577 N.Y.S.2d 167).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Jetblue Airways Corp. Privacy Litigation
...subjected to any injustice by virtue of JetBlue's conveyance of their personal data to Torch. See Bugarsky v. Marcantonio, 254 A.D.2d 384, 678 N.Y.S.2d 737, 738 (2d Dep't 1998) (appellant was entitled to dismissal of unjust enrichment claim "as there was no showing that he obtained any bene......
-
Steven Mueller Motors, Inc. v. Hickey
...eliminate all "triable issues of fact ... whether the plaintiff has a possessory right to the" vehicle at issue (Bugarsky v. Marcantonio, 254 A.D.2d 384, 384, 678 N.Y.S.2d 737 ; see generally Winegrad, 64 N.Y.2d at 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ). Furthermore, although plaintiff met......
-
Zell & Ettinger v. Berglas
...was no showing that he obtained any benefit that in equity and good conscience he should not have obtained (see, Bugarsky v. Marcantonio, 254 A.D.2d 384, 678 N.Y.S.2d 737; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Glass, 75 A.D.2d 786, 428 N.Y.S.2d 246; Mente v. Wenzel, 178 A.D.2d 705, 577 N.Y.S.2d 167). Th......
-
Blum v. Guardian Life Ins.
...to establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs unjust enrichment cause of action (see, Bugarsky v Marcantonio, 254 A.D.2d 384; see also, Rule v Brine, Inc., 85 F.3d The court properly permitted the defendant to amend its counterclaims (see, CPLR 3025[b]; s......