Pintex Corp. v. Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pintex Corp. v. Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp.

233 A.D.2d 232, 650 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11994

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 21, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 232 (Pintex Corp. v. Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp.) 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

Pintex Corp. v. Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp., 233 A.D.2d 232, 650 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 9, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendant Pinetex, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[233]*233Plaintiff sufficiently alleged its ownership of "specific identifiable personal property” and defendant-appellant’s "unauthorized dominion over the property to the exclusion of plaintiff s rights” to support its claim that defendant converted fabric that plaintiff sent to defendants Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp. and Priority Finishing Corp. for processing (Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Glass, 75 AD2d 786). The complaint is not subject to dismissal at this juncture for lack of a demand, since defendant-appellant’s unlawful acquisition of the fabric may be fairly inferred from the facts pleaded and plaintiffs supporting affidavit (compare, Agawam Trading Corp. v Malbin Co., 37 AD2d 946; see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Concur— Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 9, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendant Pinetex, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[233]*233Plaintiff sufficiently alleged its ownership of "specific identifiable personal property” and defendant-appellant’s "unauthorized dominion over the property to the exclusion of plaintiff s rights” to support its claim that defendant converted fabric that plaintiff sent to defendants Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp. and Priority Finishing Corp. for processing (Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Glass, 75 AD2d 786). The complaint is not subject to dismissal at this juncture for lack of a demand, since defendant-appellant’s unlawful acquisition of the fabric may be fairly inferred from the facts pleaded and plaintiffs supporting affidavit (compare, Agawam Trading Corp. v Malbin Co., 37 AD2d 946; see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Concur— Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 232, 650 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pintex-corp-v-poughkeepsie-finishing-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack