You are here: / / Electronic Documents Constitute “Tangible Personal Property”...

Electronic Documents Constitute “Tangible Personal Property” and Can Therefore Be the Subject of a Conversion Cause of Action

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied a motion for summary judgment dismissing the conversion cause of action, finding that electronic documents constitute “identifiable tangible personal property” and therefor can be the subject of a conversion action:

The subject matter of a conversion cause of action ” must constitute identifiable tangible personal property’; real property and interests in business opportunities will not suffice” … . However, electronic documents stored on a computer may be the subject of a conversion claim just as printed versions of the documents may … . On their cross motion, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the client accounts alleged to have been converted did not exist in tangible form, such as computerized or paper client lists. Accordingly, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the conversion cause of action was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposing papers … . Volodarsky v Moonlight Ambulette Serv Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07498, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

You might also like
Supreme Court Should Not Have Ordered a Unified (Liability and Damages) Trial–Criteria Explained in Some Depth
THE LABOR LAW LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNERS OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE WORK HAS A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, I.E., RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR SALE OR RENTAL; HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT). ​
“Law of the Case” Does Not Bind Appellate Courts
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF CROSSED INTO DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING LANE TO PASS A MAIL TRUCK, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT REACTED REASONABLY TO AN EMERGENCY; TWO OTHER CARS HAD ENTERED DEFENDANT’S LANE TO GO AROUND THE TRUCK JUST BEFORE THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THE GRASSY STRIP BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB, HERE THE PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION; IN ADDITION, THE VILLAGE CODE DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON PROPERTY OWNERS, AN ISSUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Procedure for Handling a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action When Documentary Evidence Is Submitted in Support of the Motion Explained—Attorney Discharged For Cause Is Not Entitled to “Quantum Meruit” Attorney’s Fees
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
“Sua Sponte” Dismissal of Complaint Based on Lack of Standing Reversed

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

Formal Training Not Necessarily Required to Qualify an Expert Damages for “Loss of Fetus” Under Insurance Law 5102 Are Not Available...