Majority
p. 232Pintex Corp., Respondent, v Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp. et al., Defendants, and Pinetex, Inc., Doing Business as DD Stretch, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.) [650 NYS2d 537]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 9, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendant Pinetex, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
p. 233
Plaintiff sufficiently alleged its ownership of "specific identifiable personal property” and defendant-appellant’s "unauthorized dominion over the property to the exclusion of plaintiff s rights” to support its claim that defendant converted fabric that plaintiff sent to defendants Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp. and Priority Finishing Corp. for processing (Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Glass, 75 AD2d 786 ). The complaint is not subject to dismissal at this juncture for lack of a demand, since defendant-appellant’s unlawful acquisition of the fabric may be fairly inferred from the facts pleaded and plaintiffs supporting affidavit (co mpare, Agawam Trading Corp. v Malbin Co., 37 AD2d 946 ; see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 , 87-88). Concur— Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Cases cited
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Glass 75 AD2d 786 p. 233
- Leon v. Martinez 84 NY2d 83 at 87-88 p. 233