Wallkill Medical Developers, LLC v. Sweet Constructors, LLC 2011 WL 1330852 (2d Dept, Apr 5, 2011) In this case, the owners were required to pay the architect who was a subcontractor to the general contractor. Therefore it appears that this was a design-build contract. Exactly why the owners had to pay the architect is not clear from the case. In any event, the owner, claimed it was standing in the shoes of the architect (i.e. was subrogated to the rights of the architect) and sued the contractor for both violating the trust fund provisions of Lien Law Article 3-A, and for conversion (that’s the civil action for stealing). As to the 3-A claim, the contractor argued that the owner did not have standing. However on appeal, the 2d Dept rejected this argument and affirmed the trial court stating: ” …….the plaintiffs established that they acted in a manner which was necessary to protect their ‘own economic interests.’ Accordingly, the plaintiffs were subrogees of the defendant’s architectural subcontractor and had standing to maintain a cause of action pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A in their own names.” Also affirming the claim for conversion, “The trial court also correctly determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to a money judgment on their cause of action alleging conversion. The plaintiffs established that they had ownership, possession and control of ‘specifically identifiable funds and that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over such funds to the exclusion’ of the plaintiffs’ rights.”