Roth v. Hotel Riverside Plaza, Inc.
This text of 188 Misc. 180 (Roth v. Hotel Riverside Plaza, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Memobahdum Plaintiff was admittedly indebted to defendant for unpaid rent and it had the right to retain possession of any property stored with it until the debt was paid (Lien Law, § 181). Plaintiff not having paid the same was, therefore, not entitled to immediate possession. Such payment was a condition precedent to making out a cause of [181]*181action in conversion (Jackson v. Appleton, 50 Hun 604, opinion in 2 N. Y. S. 787). Moreover, the mere loss of the property does not constitute a tortious conversion (Salt Springs National Bank v. Wheeler, 48 N. Y. 492, 495; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410, 417).
The judgment should he reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.
Hammer, Shientag and Edeb, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
188 Misc. 180, 67 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-hotel-riverside-plaza-inc-nyappterm-1947.