A trespass to personal property is t he use of someone's property without person. A conversion occurs when personal property is taken by a defendant and kept from its true owner without permission of the owner. Conversion is the civil side of the crime of theft. Demand and refusal are necessary for the maintenance of an action for conversion in all cases in which defendant was rightfully in possession.
A New York Instruction to Jury regarding the demand for and refusal of possession being prima facie evidence of conversion is a crucial aspect of legal proceedings in the state. Conversion refers to the wrongful interference with another person's property rights, and this particular instruction provides guidance to juries in understanding the significance of a demand for possession and its subsequent refusal in proving a conversion claim. When a plaintiff alleges conversion, they must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally exercised control over their property in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights. In New York, one way to establish this is through the presentation of evidence showing that the plaintiff demanded the return of their property, and the defendant refused to comply. This specific instruction serves to explain to the jury that if the plaintiff can prove they made a demand for the return of their property, and the defendant refused to comply, then the law presumes that a conversion has occurred. Prima facie evidence strengthens the plaintiff's case, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, who must then present evidence to refute or explain the demand and refusal. Different variations of this instruction may include: 1. Standard New York Instruction: Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion — This instruction provides a general overview of the legal principle, emphasizing that the plaintiff's evidence of a demand for possession and the defendant's refusal is sufficient to establish the presumption of conversion. 2. New York Instruction with Exceptions: Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion, but Certain Exceptions Apply — This instruction expands on the general principle by outlining specific exceptions or circumstances in which the presumption of conversion may be rebutted. For example, if the defendant had a valid reason for withholding possession or if there was a lack of clarity in the demand. 3. Modified New York Instruction: Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Evidence of Conversion, but Not Prima Facie — This instruction presents a modified version, explaining that while the demand for possession and refusal are relevant evidence in a conversion claim, they alone do not create a legal presumption of conversion. The jury must weigh this evidence along with other relevant factors to determine if conversion has occurred. In conclusion, a New York Instruction to Jury concerning the demand for and refusal of possession being prima facie evidence of conversion is an essential component in conversion claims. It helps guide the jury in understanding the legal significance of a demand and refusal, establishing a presumption of conversion in favor of the plaintiff unless the defendant can provide evidence to challenge this presumption.A New York Instruction to Jury regarding the demand for and refusal of possession being prima facie evidence of conversion is a crucial aspect of legal proceedings in the state. Conversion refers to the wrongful interference with another person's property rights, and this particular instruction provides guidance to juries in understanding the significance of a demand for possession and its subsequent refusal in proving a conversion claim. When a plaintiff alleges conversion, they must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally exercised control over their property in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights. In New York, one way to establish this is through the presentation of evidence showing that the plaintiff demanded the return of their property, and the defendant refused to comply. This specific instruction serves to explain to the jury that if the plaintiff can prove they made a demand for the return of their property, and the defendant refused to comply, then the law presumes that a conversion has occurred. Prima facie evidence strengthens the plaintiff's case, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, who must then present evidence to refute or explain the demand and refusal. Different variations of this instruction may include: 1. Standard New York Instruction: Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion — This instruction provides a general overview of the legal principle, emphasizing that the plaintiff's evidence of a demand for possession and the defendant's refusal is sufficient to establish the presumption of conversion. 2. New York Instruction with Exceptions: Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion, but Certain Exceptions Apply — This instruction expands on the general principle by outlining specific exceptions or circumstances in which the presumption of conversion may be rebutted. For example, if the defendant had a valid reason for withholding possession or if there was a lack of clarity in the demand. 3. Modified New York Instruction: Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Evidence of Conversion, but Not Prima Facie — This instruction presents a modified version, explaining that while the demand for possession and refusal are relevant evidence in a conversion claim, they alone do not create a legal presumption of conversion. The jury must weigh this evidence along with other relevant factors to determine if conversion has occurred. In conclusion, a New York Instruction to Jury concerning the demand for and refusal of possession being prima facie evidence of conversion is an essential component in conversion claims. It helps guide the jury in understanding the legal significance of a demand and refusal, establishing a presumption of conversion in favor of the plaintiff unless the defendant can provide evidence to challenge this presumption.
