In MICHAEL S. JOHNSON, DONNA DYMKOWSKI, PATRICIA LONG-CORREA, , –against- NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,  LEEDS, MORELLI & BROWN, P.C.,  , which ws reviewed on Friday we see more of a clutch of definitions which are quite useful:

Breach of Contract:  To state a claim of breach of contract, the plaintiff must establish 1) the formation of a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, 2) performance by the plaintiff, 3) failure by the defendant to perform, and 4) resulting damages. Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 375 F.3d 168, 177 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337, 348 (2d Cir. 1996); Furia v. Furia, 116 A.D.2d 694, 498 N.Y.S.2d 12, 13 (2nd Dep’t 1986).

To state a claim of breach of contract, the plaintiff must establish 1) the formation of a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, 2) performance by the plaintiff, 3) failure by the defendant to perform, and 4) resulting damages. Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 375 F.3d 168, 177 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337, 348 (2d Cir. 1996); Furia v. Furia, 116 A.D.2d 694, 498 N.Y.S.2d 12, 13 (2nd Dep’t 1986).
 

Common Law Fraud:, the plaintiff must show that the defendant (1) made a material false representation or omission of an existing fact; (2) defendant made such false representation with knowledge of its falsity; (3) with the intent to defraud; (4) which plaintiffs justifiably relied upon to their detriment. Compudyne Corp. v. Shane, 453 F. Supp. 2d 807, 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citing Kline v. Taukpoint Realty Corp., 302 A.D.2d 433, 754 N.Y.S.2d 899 (2nd Dep’t 2003)); Century Pacific, Inc. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 528 F. Supp. 2d 206, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing PPI Enters., Inc. v. Del Monte Foods Co., No. 99 Civ. 3794, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16006, 2003 WL 22118977, at * 19 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2003)). Additionally, in the complaint, the plaintiff must specify the particulars of the alleged [*20] fraud such as the misleading statements along with the speaker, time, place, individuals involved, and specific conduct at issue. Sullivan v. Kodsi, 373 F. Supp. 2d 302, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Miller Features Syndicate, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 2d 198, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)); Dover Ltd. V. A.B. Watley, Inc., 423 F. Supp. 2d 303, 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citing Acito v. IMCERA Group, Inc., 47 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1995)).
 

Legal Malpractice:   the plaintiff must show that the attorney acted negligently, such negligence was the proximate cause of the loss sustained, and the loss sustained is actual and ascertainable. Mega Group, Inc. v. Pechenik & Curro, P.C., 32 A.D.3d 584, 819 N.Y.S.2d 796, 798 (3rd Dep’t 2006) (citing Ehlinger v. Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 A.D.2d 925, 758 N.Y.S.2d 195 (3rd Dep’t 2003)); Flutie Bros. v. Hayes, No. 04 Civ. 4187, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31379, 2006 WL 1379594, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2006) (citation omitted). To qualify as negligence, the conduct of the lawyer [*22] must fall below "the ordinary and reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the profession." Achtman v. Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 464 F.3d 328, 337 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Grago v. Robertson, 49 A.D.2d 645, 370 N.Y.S.2d 255 (3rd Dep’t 1975). To adequately plead causation, the plaintiff must show that "but for" the attorney’s negligence "what would have been a favorable outcome was an unfavorable outcome." Flutie Bros., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31379, 2006 WL 1379594, at *5; Even Street Productions, Ltd. v. Shkat Arrow Hafer & Weber, LLP, No. 05 Civ. 3834, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42397, 2008 WL 2224297, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing D’Jamoos v. Griffith, No. 00 Civ. 1361, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17595, 2001 WL 1328592, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2001)).
 

Conversion:  conversion is the unauthorized dominion over property by the defendant that interferes with the plaintiff’s superior right of possession. U.S. v. New York State Div. Of Lottery, No. 92 Civ. 9001, 2007 WL 1703656, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2007); see Zendler Const. Co. v. First Adjustment Group, Inc., 59 A.D.3d 439, 873 N.Y.S.2d 134, 2009 WL 260905, at *1 (2nd Dep’t 2009). To establish a conversion claim, the plaintiff must show: (1) a specific identifiable thing is the subject of the conversion claim; (2) prior to the conversion plaintiff retained ownership or [*26] possession of the property; (3) exercise of unauthorized dominion by the defendant was to the exclusion of the plaintiff’s rights. Moses v. Martin, 360 F. Supp. 2d 533, 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).