Batsidis v. Batsidis

9 A.D.3d 342, 778 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9367
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 6, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 342 (Batsidis v. Batsidis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Batsidis v. Batsidis, 9 A.D.3d 342, 778 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

[343]*343In an action, inter alia, for replevin, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated October 11, 2002, which, among other things, granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, seeking the return of certain property that the defendant possessed which allegedly did not belong to him. The gravamen of the complaint sounded in replevin and conversion. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

“The rule is clear that, to establish a cause of action in conversion, the plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over the thing in question ... to the exclusion of the plaintiff’s rights . . . Tangible personal property or specific money must be involved” (Independence Discount Corp. v Bressner, 47 AD2d 756, 757 [1975] [citations omitted]; see Fiorenti v Central Emergency Physicians, 305 AD 2d 453, 454 [2003]). Moreover, a cause of action sounding in replevin must establish that the defendant is in possession of certain property of which the plaintiff claims to have a superior right (see G&S Quality v Bank of China, 233 AD2d 215 [1996]).

Here, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint because the plaintiffs failed to show that they had title, possession, or control of the funds alleged to have been converted or that they had a superior right to the property at issue.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sebco Dev., Inc. v. Siegel & Reiner, LLP
2024 NY Slip Op 50292(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
Melrose Credit Union v. Matatov
2020 NY Slip Op 05897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Askari v. McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP
2019 NY Slip Op 8547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Angiolillo v. Christie's, Inc.
New York Supreme Court, 2019
L'Aquila Realty, LLC v. Jalyng Food Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 2027 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
LaChapelle v. Torres
37 F. Supp. 3d 672 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Southeast Financial, LLC v. Broadway Towing, Inc.
117 A.D.3d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Chen v. New Trend Apparel, Inc.
8 F. Supp. 3d 406 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Twin Securities, Inc. v. Advocate & Lichtenstein, LLP
113 A.D.3d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans West Corp.
101 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Goldberger v. Rudnicki
94 A.D.3d 1047 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Scialpi
94 A.D.3d 1067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
National Center for Crisis Management, Inc. v. Lerner
91 A.D.3d 920 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
McCulloch v. Town of Milan
74 A.D.3d 1034 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Goldfine v. Sichenzia
73 A.D.3d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Accounting of Flamenbaum
27 Misc. 3d 1090 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 A.D.3d 342, 778 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batsidis-v-batsidis-nyappdiv-2004.