Plaintiff alleges that defendants promised him an employment bonus of € 375,000 for 2005; that thereafter they deposited in plaintiffs bank account the sum of $198,230.73 — purportedly his bonus after taxes — which plaintiff believed was inadequate; that the parties agreed that plaintiff would return $192,000 of the deposited money and defendants would then deposit in plaintiffs bank account the correct bonus amount in euros; and that, although plaintiff returned the $192,000, as agreed, defendants failed to deposit any funds. Plaintiff seeks damages for conversion.
An action for conversion of money may be made out "where there is a specific, identifiable fund and an obligation to return or otherwise treat in a particular manner the specific fund in question" ( Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Chemical Bank, 160 AD2d 113, 124, lv denied 11 NY2d 803). Although the action must be for recovery of a particular and definite sum of money, the specific bills need not be identified ( Jones v McHugh, 37 AD2d 878).
The allegations that specified funds "were entrusted to [defendants'] custody only for a particular purpose," namely, the purpose of recalculating and repaying the bonus due to plaintiff, and that instead defendants improperly retained the funds without making such recalculation and repayment, state a cause of action for conversion ( see Meese v Miller, 79 AD2d 237, 244 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The funds of which defendants took possession were represented by plaintiffs check for $192,000, and that $192,000 is "specifically identifiable and . . . subject to an obligation to be returned or to be otherwise treated in a particular manner" ( Republic of Haiti v Duvalier, 211 AD2d 379, 384).
Finally, the motion court was incorrect in suggesting that the voluntary nature of plaintiffs delivery of his check to defendants precludes a conversion claim ( see Soma v Handrulis, 277 NY 223, 231 [1938]).