Tinsley v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tinsley v. State

192 A.D.2d 701, 598 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4326

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

DecidedApril 26, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 701 (Tinsley v. State) 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

Tinsley v. State, 192 A.D.2d 701, 598 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The claimant, a former inmate at the Ossining Correctional Facility, alleged that prison officials unlawfully converted his boxing program proposal and submitted it as their own. The Ossining Correctional Facility subsequently funded and adopted the boxing program submitted by the prison officials.

Even assuming that the claimant’s written proposal was tangible property capable of being converted (cf., Matzan v Eastman Kodak Co., 134 AD2d 863, 864), the trial evidence reveals that the claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence (see, 23 NY Jur 2d, Conversion, § 76, at 312) any unauthorized use of his property. In any event, the claimant failed to show damages resulting from the alleged conversion of his boxing program (23 NY Jur 2d, Conversion, § 82, at 318; Fantis Foods v Standard Importing Co., 49 NY2d 317, 326; Hoffman v Dorner, 86 AD2d 651). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

The claimant, a former inmate at the Ossining Correctional Facility, alleged that prison officials unlawfully converted his boxing program proposal and submitted it as their own. The Ossining Correctional Facility subsequently funded and adopted the boxing program submitted by the prison officials.

Even assuming that the claimant’s written proposal was tangible property capable of being converted (cf., Matzan v Eastman Kodak Co., 134 AD2d 863, 864), the trial evidence reveals that the claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence (see, 23 NY Jur 2d, Conversion, § 76, at 312) any unauthorized use of his property. In any event, the claimant failed to show damages resulting from the alleged conversion of his boxing program (23 NY Jur 2d, Conversion, § 82, at 318; Fantis Foods v Standard Importing Co., 49 NY2d 317, 326; Hoffman v Dorner, 86 AD2d 651). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 701, 598 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinsley-v-state-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack