You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ $96,000, CONSTITUTING TWO MONTHS’...
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ $96,000, CONSTITUTING TWO MONTHS’ RENT AND A SECURITY DEPOSIT, WAS TRANSFERRED TO DEFENDANT FROM AN ATTORNEY’S IOLA ACCOUNT, THE $96,000 CONSTITUTED AN “IDENTIFIABLE FUND” WHICH DEFENDANT “CONVERTED” WHEN IT WAS NOT RETURNED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a two-justice dissent, determined the $96,000 transferred from an attorney’s IOLA account to defendant landlord was an “identifiable fund” which was a proper subject of this conversion action. The fund was for two months rent and a security deposit on a lease. But the lease was never signed. By keeping the $96,000 defendant had converted the “identified fund.” One of the points in the opinion was that the transfer of funds to an attorney’s IOLA account does not necessarily render the funds incapable of being “identified:”

… [W]e now clarify that our prior decision in SH575 Holdings [195 AD3d 429], which found that funds were not specifically identifiable by virtue of being transferred into the IOLA account of an attorney involved in a Ponzi scheme, should not be read to preclude a cause of action for conversion when funds at issue have been commingled to any extent. Here, notwithstanding the funds’ transmission through plaintiffs’ attorney’s IOLA account, the funds’ temporary presence in that account did not constitute commingling under any measure pertinent to this cause of action. While the funds were in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ IOLA account, they remained plaintiffs’ funds. Consequently, this conclusion is not at odds with this Court’s holding in SH575 Holdings. Family Health Mgt., LLC v Rohan Devs., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03796, First Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs’ security deposit and two-months rent amounting to $96,000 were transferred to defendant landlord from an attorney’s IOLA account. However the lease was never signed and defendant did not return the money. Despite the fact that the money was deposited in the IOLA account, it remained an “identifiable fund” and was therefore a proper subject for this conversion action.

 

You might also like
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY PAID A BROKER FOR THE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY DEFENDANT INSURER BUT THE INSURER CANCELLED THE POLICY FOR NONPAYMENT; THE INSURER ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS NOT IN THE CHAIN OF BROKERS LEADING FROM PLAINTIFFS TO THE INSURER; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Telephone-Communication Buy-Sell Arrangements Sufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction/Forum Selection Clause In Invoices Not Enforceable Pursuant to UCC 207
Plaintiff Not Entitled to Disqualification of a Defendant’s Law Firm—Relevant Communication Did Not Have the Potential to Be Significantly Harmful to Plaintiff—Information Was Generally Known
ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. 
ALLEGED MISHANDLING OF DECEDENT’S BODY BEFORE PLAINTIFF TOOK CUSTODY OF IT SUPPORTED THE RIGHT OF SEPULCHER CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
THE RESPONDENT CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SURROUNDING THE BUS-VEHICLE COLLISION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE TEN MONTH DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE) (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (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

THE WIFE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT (1) THE FAIRNESS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS... THE “FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A REINSURER...