You are here: / / Conversion Action Can Not Be Based Upon Funds Which Came Into Party’s P...
, ,

Conversion Action Can Not Be Based Upon Funds Which Came Into Party’s Possession Lawfully (Down Payment)

In a breach of (purchase) contract action, the Second Department explained that a conversion cause of action could not be based upon the down payment in seller’s possession, and an unjust enrichment cause of action could not be based on the same facts as the breach of contract cause of action:

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Smith’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging conversion, since he was rightfully in possession of the down payment …. “Where one is rightfully in possession of property, one’s continued custody of the property and refusal to deliver it on demand of the owner until the owner proves his [or her] right to it does not constitute a conversion”…. The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging unjust enrichment as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action….  Green Complex, Inc v Smith, 2013 NY Slip Op 04575, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT BLAMING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON HIS PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR VACATING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Quantity and Nature of Child Pornography Warranted an Upward Departure in a SORA Proceeding
A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MENTION DE-ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF FUTURE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT DE-ACCELERATED AND THE SUBSEQUENT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BUILDING DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS INSPECTED AND FOUND TO BE DRY CLOSE IN TIME TO THE ALLEGED FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
​ THE CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE WHEN PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY BY PROVIDING DEFENDANTS WITH MEDICAL AUTHORIZATIONS BY THE SPECIFIED DATE; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF OFFERED NO REASONABLE EXCUSE, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA) UNILATERALLY ADJOURNED THE 5O-H HEARING IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AND ALLEGEDLY SENT A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DENIED RECEIPT OF THE LETTER AND DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IN REPLY; THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONSIDERED; IN ADDITION, THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE THE LETTER WAS MAILED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Legal Malpractice Action Based Upon Course of Action Taken in Immigration Proceedings... Allegation Release Procured by Fraud Precluded Dismissal of Complaint