Opinion
November 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant's Statute of Limitations defense, as the complaint states a cause of action to recover damages for conversion, and the action was commenced within the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations (see, e.g., Sporn v MCA Records, 58 N.Y.2d 482, 488; Two Clinton Sq. Corp. v Friedler, 91 A.D.2d 1193; CPLR 214).
We further find that the defendant failed to establish its defenses sufficiently to warrant judgment in its favor as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The parties' conflicting affidavits presented credibility issues which should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment (see, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341; Dyckman v Barrett 187 A.D.2d 553). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.