Opinion
June 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
The causes of action for conversion and money had and received asserted against defendant attorney were properly dismissed. Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in response to defendant attorneys showing that he had disbursed $65,000 from the proceeds of the subject check before receiving the April 13 hand delivery of plaintiffs April 10 letter demanding that he turn over the proceeds of the check. The attorneys subsequent retention of the remaining proceeds of the check in his clients escrow account was not wrongful in light of plaintiffs failure to provide the promised documentation in support of its claim ( see, Bradley v. Roe, 282 N.Y. 525, 531-532). Plaintiff's belated attempt at compliance by providing only the factoring agreement without the accompanying schedule of the account receivable that it claimed or the applicable UCC-1 financing statement was insufficient to warrant defendant attorneys invasion of his clients escrow to pay the unsubstantiated claim.
We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.