Williams v. Roper

• Decision Date: 01 February 2000
• Citation: 269 A.D.2d 125,703 N.Y.S.2d 77
• Parties: LEROY WILLIAMS, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>JESTINE G. ROPER, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

269 A.D.2d 125

703 N.Y.S.2d 77

LEROY WILLIAMS, Appellant,

v.JESTINE G. ROPER, Respondent.

Decided February 1, 2000.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Plaintiff is treasurer and co-founder of the Roper Family Reunion, an unincorporated association organized in 1995 by defendant and co-founder Jestine G. Roper and others to bring together members of the Roper family. The organization deposited money from dues and fund raising activities in an account with Chemical Bank in Harlem. The account signatories were plaintiff, defendant and a chairperson, Mr. Isaiah Bly. The signatures of any two of these three persons were required to withdraw funds.

After discord developed, defendant Roper expressed the desire to distance herself from the organization. It was apparently resolved, at a meeting held June 29, 1996, that her name would be removed from the bank account. Therefore, on July 2, 1996, defendant and Mr. Bly went to the bank, ostensibly to effectuate the change in the account. While at the bank, however, a dispute arose, resulting in the withdrawal of the balance of $1436.10 in the form of a money order payable to the organization. Thereafter, the money order was used to open an account at the Dime Savings Bank in Brooklyn, also in the name of the association, but with defendant as the only signatory. Defendant used the funds for a family reunion picnic held in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, for which flyers were distributed to the membership and which was undisputedly attended by over 50 family members.

On July 11, 1996, plaintiff commenced this action in the Small Claims Part of Civil Court, alleging that defendant took the money from the Chemical bank account without the association's consent and applied it to an unauthorized use. Following trial, the court found that defendant had converted the funds and awarded judgment to plaintiff, crediting the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses but not the testimony given by defendant and her witness.

Appellate Term reversed and dismissed the complaint, one Justice dissenting. The majority found "no basis to cast defendant in damages on the evidence presented". Appellate Term faulted the scant record for omitting the "association's by-laws [and] minutes of resolutions", thus failing to support a finding that defendant's use of the money was "without proper authorization or, for that matter, that maintenance of the action itself was duly authorized by the association's governing...