From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weisman v. Chadbourne Parke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 29, 1998
253 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

September 29, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arbor, J.).


Although plaintiff may not hold defendant liable as a primary tortfeasor for conversion of the subject cooperative corporation shares since defendant never possessed the shares themselves but rather the proceeds from their sale and moreover possessed such proceeds pursuant to escrow provisions contained in a court order, plaintiff nonetheless presents a viable claim that defendant knowingly aided in the conversion of the shares by their original owner ( cf., Lenczycki v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 238 A.D.2d 248, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 91 N.Y.2d 918). We note in this connection that this Court has already affirmed a finding that there are triable issues as to whether the original owner is liable for conversion of the shares ( see, Weisman, Celler, Spett Modlin v. Fein, 225 A.D.2d 508).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Weisman v. Chadbourne Parke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 29, 1998
253 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Weisman v. Chadbourne Parke

Case Details

Full title:WEISMAN, CELLER, SPETT MODLIN, Respondent, v. CHADBOURNE PARKE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Sep 29, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 16

Citing Cases

Weisman, Celler, Spett v. Chadbourne

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, RUBIN, SAXE, BUCKLEY, JJ. Based upon the evidence obtained through discovery,…