Pintex Corp. v. Poughkeepsie Finishing Corp.

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. 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 (compare, 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.