On January 23, 2018, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Domingo v. Bidkind, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 30141(U), dismissing a claim for conversion because it did not relate to separate, identifiable funds, explaining:
BidKind argues that I should dismiss the fourth cause of action for conversion of money because Santo Domingo failed to plead that there is a specific, identifiable fund and an obligation to return, or otherwise treat in a particular manner, the specific fund at issue. Even giving Santo Domingo the most favorable inference, he has not stated a conversion claim. The papers submitted show that the funds at issue were general deposits made in the ordinary course of business and were not segregated from other deposits. Accordingly, I dismiss the fourth cause of action for conversion.
(Internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Commercial litigation often involves conversion claims. As this decision shows, conversion can involve much more than physical objects. It can involve money (in certain circumstances) as well as intangible property. As this decision shows, there are limits to the law of conversion. Contact Schlam Stone & Dolan partner John Lundin at email@example.com if you or a client have a question regarding one person depriving another of her property, whether that property is tangible or intangible, or even involves a discrete fund of money.
Click here to subscribe to this or another of Schlam Stone & Dolan’s blogs.