On August 1, 2024, the Third Department issued a decision in Powerflex Solar, LLC v. Solar PV Pros, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op. 04102, dismissing a conversion claim based on the failure to turn over money, explaining:
Finally, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in ruling that plaintiff failed to state a claim for conversion. A cause of action for conversion exists where the plaintiff has a possessory right or interest in the property and the defendant has dominion over the property or interferes with it, in derogation of the plaintiff’s rights. Money, if specifically identifiable, may be the subject of a conversion action. Here, the amended complaint alleges that plaintiff paid approximately $1.16 million to SPVP as a deposit for the modules. Plaintiff also alleges that a significant portion of the deposit to SPVP was received by EoS and Meitus, and points to an email with EoS’ counsel acknowledging from May 2020 that EoS had received at least $524,166.42 of the deposit plaintiff had paid as part of this transaction. Plaintiff alleged that the deposit it paid to SPVP was being held by all defendants while making no performance, thus converting the money that rightfully belongs to plaintiff. Thus, these allegations demonstrate that the money that was paid by Meitus to EoS differed in amount from what was paid by plaintiff to SPVP, and plaintiff’s pleadings failed to allege that the money was somehow segregated upon its transfer to SPVP, or upon the subsequent transfers to Meitus and then EoS and, as such, plaintiff failed to specifically identify the funds at issue. As such, Supreme Court properly dismissed the conversion claim as to defendants because plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and, to the extent not specifically discussed herein, find them to be without merit.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).