With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Oct. 29, 2007). Plaintiffs’ conversion claim with respect to the business documents, including the client list, fails as a matter of law. While Belliard did assume or exercise control over Pure Power’s client list to the extent that he accessed the client list from a Pure Power computer and downloaded it onto a thumb drive, Belliard possessed only a copy of the client list and did not, in any way, limit or otherwise deprive Pure Power of possession or use of that list. See Hair Say, Ltd. v. Salon Opus, Inc., 6 Misc.3d 1041(A), No. 5106-01(LBA), 2005 WL 697538, at *5 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Mar. 17, 2005) (granting summary judgment on a conversion claim where plaintiff retained possession of a list of beauty salon clients that had been copied by defendants); Alpha Funding, 2007 WL 3375871, at *7 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, although the Court concludes that

A: holding former employee could properly use recollection of customer information where he did not otherwise misappropriate an actual customer list
B: holding that where plaintiff did not allege that it was deprived of or excluded from use of its own customer lists it could not establish conversion
C: holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information
D: holding that it is not
B.