You are here: / / A CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ITEMS LAWFULLY IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION...

A CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ITEMS LAWFULLY IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION WILL NOT LIE UNLESS PLAINTIFF FIRST DEMANDED THEIR RETURN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined some of plaintiff’s conversion allegations did not state a cause of action. Apparently plaintiff had created a website for defendant which included photographs, design and coding. Because the website, photographs, design and coding were lawfully in the possession of defendant, and plaintiff did not demand their return, conversion will not lie. Also, a conversion action cannot be based upon damages for breach of contract. However unpaid salary may be the subject of a conversion action:

… [D]efendants had lawful possession of the website that plaintiff had created for defendant The Front Row, as well as the photographs, design, and coding used on the website. Since plaintiff did not allege that she demanded return of those items, she cannot sustain her claim for conversion of the website, the design and coding for the website, and the photographs … . Plaintiff also cannot sustain the conversion claim for a $16,000 fee purportedly owed to her, since “an action for conversion cannot be validly maintained where damages are merely being sought for breach of contract” … .  Nonetheless, plaintiff has standing to assert a claim for conversion of an $8,000 monthly salary payment, because “[c]onversion is concerned with possession, not with title” … . Liegey v Gadeh, 2021 NY Slip Op 05461, First Dept 10-12-21

 

You might also like
NYC Fire Department Cannot Be Compelled to Bargain Over the “Zero Tolerance” Drug-Test Policy for EMS Personnel
Verdict Properly Set Aside—Theory of Liability Alleged at Trial Altered the Theory of Liability Alleged in Notice of Claim
AMONG SEVERAL LABOR LAW, NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, THE 2ND DEPT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN ITS LABOR LAW 200 ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE THE EMPLOYER OF A PHYSICIAN HAS PAID THE PREMIUMS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY DEMUTUALIZES, ABSENT AN AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, THE PROCEEDS GO TO THE PHYSICIAN, NOT THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​
Under the Facts, the Prosecutor Was Not Obligated to Present Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury—Defendant Did Not Exercise His Right to Testify Before the Grand Jury
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AFTER TOUCHING A LIVE ELECTRIC WIRE; FAILURE TO TURN OFF THE ELECTRICITY MAY BE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
WHISTLEBLOWER CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE AND DID NOT WAIVE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARBITRATION IN THIS ACTION ALLEGING NONPAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ARBITRATOR RULES ON PAYMENT FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS; COURTS RULE ON THE VALIDITY OF MECHANIC’S LIENS (FIRST 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

EVEN A UBIQUITOUS “DE MINIMUS” VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC... SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S...