ESTATE OF GIUSTINO v. ESTATE OF DelPIZZO

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"The rule is clear that, to establish a cause of action in conversion, the plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over the thing in question . . . to the exclusion of the plaintiff's rights" ( Independence Discount Corp. v. Bressner, 47 AD2d 756, 757; see Batsidis v. Batsidis, 9 AD3d 342, 343; O'Callaghan v. Stepfamily Found., 292 AD2d 579, 580).

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that it failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and to possession of the disputed bank accounts by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Moreover, in the absence of a judgment, the issuance of a turnover order was inappropriate ( see CPLR 5255 [a]).