Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
REAL WORLD HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent, v. 393 WEST BROADWAY, et al., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered May 1, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the cause of action for conversion (the twenty-fourth cause of action), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendants' appeal from aforementioned order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.
The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's twenty-fourth cause of action alleging conversion. Here, plaintiff's cause of action for conversion is really one for interference with its rights of ownership and possession of real property—namely, the apartment and private roof area, to which plaintiff has rights through the proprietary lease. The claim must fail because no claim for conversion will lie for interference with an interest in real property (see B & C Realty, Co. v. 159 Emmut Props. LLC, 106 A.D.3d 653, 656, 966 N.Y.S.2d 402 [1st Dept. 2013]).
Moreover, the claim for conversion is based on rights governed by the proprietary lease and roof purchase agreement. Thus, the existence of these valid, written agreements governing the same subject matter precludes a claim for conversion, as a quasi contract claim (see Parrott v. Logos Capital Mgt., LLC, 91 A.D.3d 488, 489, 936 N.Y.S.2d 194 [1st Dept. 2012]).
Furthermore, the law of the case did not require the court to deny the motion to dismiss the conversion claim, even though it had previously granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a new cause of action for conversion. Law of the case is a discretionary doctrine when it involves a court reconsidering its own prior order (see Cobalt Partners, L.P. v. GSC Capital Corp., 97 A.D.3d 35, 39, 944 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept. 2012]). The standard for facial sufficiency of an amendment is “demonstrably different from the standards applied to” a motion to dismiss (Daniels v. Empire–Orr, Inc., 151 A.D.2d 370, 371, 542 N.Y.S.2d 614 [1st Dept. 1989])
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3843
Decided: March 06, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)