party; (2) knowledge of this violation on the part of the aider and abettor; and (3) substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in achievement of the violation. See Calcutti v. SBU, Inc., 273 F.Supp.2d 488, 493 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (citing cases). While "wrongful intent is not an essential element of the conversion,” Leve v. C. Itoh & Co. (Am.), Inc., 136 A.D.2d 477, 478, 523 N.Y.S.2d 512 (1st Dep’t 1988) (citing cases), a plaintiff must show that the defendant "aided and assisted” the converter "with culpable knowledge that such funds did not belong to [the converter]." Weisman, Celler, Spett & Modlin v. Chadbourne & Parke, 271 A.D.2d 329, 330, 706 N.Y.S.2d 414 (1st Dep't 2000); accord Lenczycki v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 238 A.D.2d 248, 248, 656 N.Y.S.2d 609 (1st Dep’t 1997) (<HOLDING>). New York "has not adopted a constructive
holding that defendants bear the burden of showing that the challenged act was objectively reasonable citation omitted holding that questions of reasonableness depend upon the facts and circumstances  the total atmosphere of the case citation omitted  which must be viewed in the light of established fourth amendment principles holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that the aider and abettor must know of the converters intention to convert the funds citation omitted holding that where the party does know that the filing and signing is sic wrongful and the attorney reasonably should know then sanctions against both are appropriate