From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matzan v. Eastman Kodak Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Summary

holding that one cannot convert another's ideas, and thus a claim for conversion does not lie for the withholding of purely intangible property

Summary of this case from In re Chateaugay Corp.

Opinion

November 10, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Contiguglia, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant's motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff's fourth and fifth causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff's fourth cause of action alleges that defendant converted money it wrongfully withheld from him by using his suggestions without paying for them. Plaintiff's claim is for nonperformance under an alleged agreement and his remedy is to sue for breach of contract (see, Peters Griffin Woodward v WCSC, Inc., 88 A.D.2d 883). A breach of contract does not give rise to a tort action in the absence of additional allegations of wrongdoing (Burlew v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 99 A.D.2d 11, 16, affd 63 N.Y.2d 412; Wegman v. Dairylea Coop., 50 A.D.2d 108, 112-113). Additionally, plaintiff failed to allege that defendant converted specifically identifiable money belonging to him and thus his claim for conversion of money must be dismissed (see, Peters Griffin Woodward v. WCSC, Inc., supra; Independence Discount Corp. v. Bressner, 47 A.D.2d 756, 757).

Plaintiff's fifth cause of action must also be dismissed as it alleges that defendant converted three of plaintiff's ideas. A claim for conversion does not lie for the withholding of indefinite, intangible, and incorporeal species of property (see generally, 23 N.Y. Jur 2d, Conversion, § 11; 18 Am Jur 2d, Conversion, §§ 9, 13). The law of patents and copyrights provides a useful analog. Generally, one may not patent or copyright an idea (see, 18 Am Jur 2d, Copyright and Literary Property, § 3; 60 Am Jur 2d, Patents, § 7). There is no protected interest in an idea, but only in the tangible expression or implementation of that idea. It thus cannot be the subject of conversion. Further, in an action for conversion, a plaintiff must show a right, title or interest in property superior to that of defendant (23 N.Y. Jur 2d, Conversion, §§ 18-21, 76, 79). Plaintiff has not made such allegation and it is difficult to see how he could prove a superior right in view of the fact that "ownership" of an idea is not a protected interest. Finally, in an action for conversion, a plaintiff must allege and prove that he has made a demand for the return of the property. Obviously, it is conceptually impossible to demand the return of an idea. action.)


Summaries of

Matzan v. Eastman Kodak Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

holding that one cannot convert another's ideas, and thus a claim for conversion does not lie for the withholding of purely intangible property

Summary of this case from In re Chateaugay Corp.
Case details for

Matzan v. Eastman Kodak Company

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE A. MATZAN, Respondent, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 10, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Signature Apparel Grp. LLC v. Laurita (In re Signature Apparel Grp. LLC)

New York does not generally recognize a claim for conversion of intangible property. Matzan v. Eastman Kodak…

Phansalkar v. Andersen Weinroth Co., L.P.

Under New York law, the general rule is that "a claim for conversion does not lie for the withholding of…