Weisman v. Chadbourne & Parke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weisman v. Chadbourne & Parke

253 A.D.2d 721, 678 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9771

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 721 (Weisman v. Chadbourne & Parke) 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

Weisman v. Chadbourne & Parke, 253 A.D.2d 721, 678 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered June 11, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellant’s brief, denied defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause of action sounding in conversion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although plaintiff may not hold defendant liable as a primary tortfeasor for conversion of the subject cooperative corporation shares since defendant never possessed the shares themselves but rather the proceeds from their sale and moreover possessed such proceeds pursuant to escrow provisions contained in a court order, plaintiff nonetheless presents a viable claim that defendant knowingly aided in the conversion of the shares by their original owner (cf., Lenczycki v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 238 AD2d 248, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 91 NY2d 918). We note in this connection that this Court has already affirmed a finding that there are triable issues as to whether the original owner is liable for conversion of the shares (see, Weisman, Celler, Spett & Modlin v Fein, 225 AD2d 508). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, 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 (Carol Arber, J.), entered June 11, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellant’s brief, denied defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause of action sounding in conversion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although plaintiff may not hold defendant liable as a primary tortfeasor for conversion of the subject cooperative corporation shares since defendant never possessed the shares themselves but rather the proceeds from their sale and moreover possessed such proceeds pursuant to escrow provisions contained in a court order, plaintiff nonetheless presents a viable claim that defendant knowingly aided in the conversion of the shares by their original owner (cf., Lenczycki v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 238 AD2d 248, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 91 NY2d 918). We note in this connection that this Court has already affirmed a finding that there are triable issues as to whether the original owner is liable for conversion of the shares (see, Weisman, Celler, Spett & Modlin v Fein, 225 AD2d 508). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 721, 678 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weisman-v-chadbourne-parke-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack