Wright v. Connor
Russell Wright v. James F. Connor
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.