Opinion
June 10, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the verdict of the Supreme Court finding liability premised on a theory of conversion was not against the weight of the evidence. A cause of action for conversion requires a showing that the defendant exercised unauthorized dominion over the plaintiffs' property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs' rights (see, Della Pietra v State of New York, 125 A.D.2d 936, affd 71 N.Y.2d 792; see also, Salt Springs Natl. Bank v. Wheeler, 48 N.Y. 492, 495; AMF Inc. v Algo Distribs., 48 A.D.2d 352, 356). The conflicting evidence presented a question of credibility which the fact-finder resolved in the plaintiffs' favor (see, Buckenberger v. Clark Constr. Corp., 208 A.D.2d 790; Stutman v. Ortel, 150 A.D.2d 555, 556; Pannetta v. Ramo, 138 A.D.2d 686, 687).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.