Castaldi v. 39 Winfield Associates
Decision Date | 13 June 2006 |
Docket Number | 2005-09901. |
Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 04793,820 N.Y.S.2d 279,30 A.D.3d 458 |
Parties | MARC CASTALDI, Plaintiff, and MARC CONTRACTING, INC., Respondent, v. 39 WINFIELD ASSOCIATES, Defendant, and JOHN D. LIUM, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the seventh cause of action in the second amended complaint is dismissed.
The appellant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his cross motion, in effect, to dismiss the seventh cause of action in the second amended complaint, which seeks to recover damages for conversion. We agree. To establish a cause of action in conversion "the plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over the thing in question . . . to the exclusion of the plaintiff's rights" (Batsidis v Batsidis, 9 AD3d 342, 343 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Fiorenti v Central Emergency Physicians, 305 AD2d 453 [2003]; O'Callaghan v Stepfamily Found., 292 AD2d 579 [2002]; Meese v Miller, 79 AD2d 237, 242 [1981]). Accepting the facts alleged in the second amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, as we must on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 [1994]; Morales v Copy Right, Inc., 28 AD3d 440 [2006]; Fasano v Colon, 27 AD3d 691 [2006]), we find that the conversion claim fails to state a cause of action. Although the plaintiff alleged a contractual right to payment for renovation work it performed on premises owned by the defendant 39 Winfield Associates, it never had ownership, possession, or control of the proceeds realized from the sale of the renovated premises. Accordingly, the conversion claim asserted against the appellant, who allegedly had control over the sale proceeds, must fail (see Batsidis v Batsidis, supra; Fiorenti v Central Emergency Physicians, supra; Colombo...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Csi Grp., LLP v. Harper
...a contractual right to payment where they never had ownership, possession, or control of the disputed funds (see Castaldi v. 39 Winfield Assoc., 30 A.D.3d 458, 820 N.Y.S.2d 279 ; Soviero v. Carroll Group Intl., Inc., 27 A.D.3d 276, 277, 813 N.Y.S.2d 49 ; Interstate Adjusters v. First Fid. B......
-
Ddr Constr. Serv. Inc. v. Siemens Indus. Inc.
...funds, both of which are required in an action for conversion of money under New York law. See Castaldi v. 39 Winfield Assocs., 30 A.D.3d 458, 458–59, 820 N.Y.S.2d 279 (N.Y.App.Div.2006) (reversing Supreme Court's denial of dismissal of conversion claim because, “[ ]though the plaintiff all......
-
PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans W. Corp.
...rights” ( Batsidis v. Batsidis, 9 A.D.3d 342, 343, 778 N.Y.S.2d 913 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Castaldi v. 39 Winfield Assoc., 30 A.D.3d 458, 458, 820 N.Y.S.2d 279). “A corporate officer may be liable for torts committed by or for the benefit of the corporation if the officer p......
-
Orchid Constr. Corp.. v. Gottbetter
...[Gottbetter], it never had ownership, possession, or control of” the funds allegedly converted by Malabre ( Castaldi v. 39 Winfield Assoc., 30 A.D.3d 458, 458–459, 820 N.Y.S.2d 279; see Daub v. Future Tech Enters., Inc., 65 A.D.3d 1004, 1006, 885 N.Y.S.2d 115; Fiorenti v. Central Emergency ......