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
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES HE SUFFERED FROM DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF CONTRACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Condition Precedent to Arbitration Re: a Hit-and-Run Accident Involving an Unidentified Vehicle Is Physical Contact with Unidentified Vehicle—Lack of Proof of Physical Contact Justified Permanent Stay of Arbitration
Text Messages Authenticated Because They “Made No Sense” Unless Defendant Sent Them
NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF; CITY WAS THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM SUIT.
THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN SEWER CHARGES BUT WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION; THE WATER BOARD MUST BE ADDED AS A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Observing a “Bulge” Did Not Justify Forcible Detention
Plaintiff Should Have Been Granted Extension to Serve Summons and Complaint Three Days After 120-Day Period Expired

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