Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the verdict of the Supreme Court finding liability premised on a theory of conversion was not against the weight of the evidence. A cause of action for conversion requires a showing that the defendant exercised unauthorized dominion over the plaintiffs' property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs' rights (see, Della Pietra v State of New York, 125 A.D.2d 936, affd 71 N.Y.2d 792; see also, Salt Springs Natl. Bank v. Wheeler, 48 N.Y. 492, 495; AMF Inc. v Algo Distribs., 48 A.D.2d 352, 356). The conflicting evidence presented a question of credibility which the fact-finder resolved in the plaintiffs' favor (see, Buckenberger v. Clark Constr. Corp., 208 A.D.2d 790; Stutman v. Ortel, 150 A.D.2d 555, 556; Pannetta v. Ramo, 138 A.D.2d 686, 687).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.