Wright v. Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Connor

228 A.D.2d 493, 643 N.Y.2d 1002, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6580

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

DecidedJune 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 493 (Wright v. Connor) 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

Wright v. Connor, 228 A.D.2d 493, 643 N.Y.2d 1002, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the verdict of the Supreme Court finding liability premised on a theory of conversion was not against the weight of the evidence. A cause of action for conversion requires a showing that the defendant exercised unauthorized dominion over the plaintiffs’ property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ rights (see, Della Pietra v State of New York, 125 AD2d 936, affd 71 NY2d 792; see also, Salt Springs Natl. Bank v Wheeler, 48 NY 492, 495; AMF Inc. v Algo Distribs., 48 AD2d 352, 356). The conflicting evidence presented a question of credibility which the fact-finder resolved in the plaintiffs’ favor (see, Buckenberger v Clark Constr. Corp., 208 AD2d 790; Stutman v Ortel, 150 AD2d 555, 556; Pannetta v Ramo, 138 AD2d 686, 687).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the verdict of the Supreme Court finding liability premised on a theory of conversion was not against the weight of the evidence. A cause of action for conversion requires a showing that the defendant exercised unauthorized dominion over the plaintiffs’ property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ rights (see, Della Pietra v State of New York, 125 AD2d 936, affd 71 NY2d 792; see also, Salt Springs Natl. Bank v Wheeler, 48 NY 492, 495; AMF Inc. v Algo Distribs., 48 AD2d 352, 356). The conflicting evidence presented a question of credibility which the fact-finder resolved in the plaintiffs’ favor (see, Buckenberger v Clark Constr. Corp., 208 AD2d 790; Stutman v Ortel, 150 AD2d 555, 556; Pannetta v Ramo, 138 AD2d 686, 687).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 493, 643 N.Y.2d 1002, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-connor-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack