The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 were read on this motion to DISMISS. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION This action arises from a $1,000,000 wire transfer that plaintiff, Innovative Telecom LLC, erroneously made to defendant 3667 Corp. — not to plaintiff’s intended recipient, nonparty Viettel Group. A month after the erroneous transfer occurred, defendant Spin Capital LLC, a judgment creditor of 3667 Group, levied on 3667 Group’s bank account and debited $999,974 from the account — i.e., the remaining balance from the erroneous transfer. Several months later, plaintiff, upon realizing that the wire transfer had gone astray and that the transferred funds were now in Spin Capital’s hands, contacted it to demand the return of those funds. Spin Capital did not return the funds. Plaintiff brought this action against Spin Capital, 3667 Corp., and other judgment debtors of Spin Capital, asserting claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Spin Capital now moves to dismiss the claims against it under CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The motion is granted. DISCUSSION I. Whether Plaintiff’s Claims Against Spin Capital are Governed by UCC Article 4-A At the outset, Spin Capital’s motion to dismiss raises the issue of what body of law governs the causes of action at issue on the motion. Spin Capital argues that because the payment at issue from plaintiff to 3667 Corp. was made by wire transfer, plaintiff’s claims against Spin Capital are governed by Article 4-A of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in New York. (See NYSCEF No. 14 at 3.) Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the applicability of Article 4-A is limited, properly speaking, to claims that arise from, and relate to, “the mechanics of wire transfers.” (NYSCEF No. 20 at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that because its causes of action do not rest on how the initial transfer to 3667 Corp. was conducted, but instead are brought against Spin Capital — “a stranger to the underlying Erroneous Wire transaction” — those claims are not subject to Article 4-A but are instead governed only by common-law principles. (Id. at 8.) This court agrees with Spin Capital. As plaintiff itself concedes, Article 4-A “‘controls how electronic funds transfers are conducted and specifies certain rights and duties related to the execution of such transactions.’” (Id. at 4, quoting Niram, Inc. v. Sterling Natl. Bank, 2023 WL 6394007, at *4 [SD NY Sept. 29, 2023].) One of the core rights that Article 4-A addresses is who has title to funds transferred by wire at which points in time — particularly when a transfer goes astray instead of reaching the intended beneficiary. (See e.g. UCC 4-A-205, 4-A-207, 4-A-402, 4-A-405.) Each of plaintiff’s claims against Spin Capital rests on the legal premise that the (erroneously) transferred funds properly belong to plaintiff, rather than to 3667 Corp. or to Spin Capital. (See NYSCEF No. 2 at 53 [money had and received]; id. at
