Meese v. Miller

Rule of Law:

A cause of action for intentional fraud is independent of contract and requires allegations of a representation, falsity, scienter, reliance, and damages. A cause of action for conversion requires allegations of intent, interference with property rights to the exclusion of the plaintiff's rights, and the plaintiff's possession or right to possession of specific identifiable property.

Facts:

• On October 6, 1978, plaintiff transmitted a check for $2,873 to Corson Computer Corporation, Inc. (Corson), a Texas Instruments dealer, along with a written purchase offer for a Texas Instrument Model 765 portable computer terminal.
• The equipment was to be delivered by October 12, 1978, but Corson never ordered it, and plaintiff never received it.
• The $2,873 check was deposited into Corson’s checking account at Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T).
• Around October 12, 1978, M&T called Corson's commercial loan and attached Corson’s assets, including its bank accounts which contained plaintiff's funds.
• Stephen Moxley, an officer of M&T, allegedly forced Corson to conceal M&T's control and advised Corson not to order the equipment, not to return the funds to plaintiff, and not to inform plaintiff about the status of his funds.
• Corson repeatedly requested M&T and Moxley to release plaintiff's funds for their intended purpose or for return to plaintiff, but they refused.
• Defendant Miller, acting as an "administrator for the liquidation" for M&T, repeatedly, falsely, and fraudulently advised plaintiff that the equipment had been ordered.
• Plaintiff relied on these representations, which prevented him from making timely corrective or mitigating changes for "a highly opportune personal collaboration with fellow scientists."

Procedural Posture:

• Plaintiff filed an initial complaint on February 14, 1979, against Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T) and Stephen Moxley, among others, in the trial court.
• Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint on August 1, 1979, and a second amended complaint on December 7, 1979.
• The trial court dismissed the initial, amended, and second amended complaints for failure to state a cause of action against M&T and Moxley.
• The trial court's order dismissing the amended complaint specified that any subsequent dismissal for failure to state a cause of action would be "on the merits and with prejudice."
• Plaintiff's motion for reargument or resettlement of this order was denied by the trial court.
• Plaintiff appealed to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, from the order dismissing the second amended complaint and the resettlement order.
• On oral argument before the Appellate Division, plaintiff conceded that the second and third causes of action in the complaint failed to state a cause of action.