You are here: / / NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING...

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.

In a lengthy opinion by Justice Austin, too detailed to be fairly summarized here, the Second Department determined a New York agent (Kraft) which acted on the investors’, including defendant’s, behalf, but over which the defendant exercised no control, and a subscription agreement with a New York choice of law provision were insufficient, under the facts, to confer jurisdiction of New York courts over the lawsuit. The lawsuit sought payment on a note which was related to defendant’s investment in an oil and gas joint venture (AIV). Defendant resided in Illinois, the note was executed in Illinois, and defendant did not transact any business in New York:

Here, the defendant did not personally transact business in New York, and the complaint does not contain any allegations that he did so … . After the defendant executed the Subscription Agreement and the note in Illinois, the only acts connecting him to New York with respect to his investment in AIV were sending one letter in December 1997 to representatives of AIV and engaging in a telephone conversation with representatives of AIV … . Moreover, no meetings were held in New York between the defendant and the plaintiffs … . Even though CPLR 302(a) is a single-act statute, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendant’s act of appointing Kraft, a corporation that maintains its principal office in New York, as his attorney-in-fact upon investing in the joint venture is not sufficient to invoke jurisdiction. * * *

Accepting the plaintiffs’ assertions that Kraft executed business orders and drilling and operating agreements and collected and distributed monies on the defendant’s behalf in New York State, and that knowledge of and consent to Kraft’s actions were established by the Subscription Agreement, which appointed Kraft as his attorney-in-fact with regard to these transactions, the defendant’s lack of control undermines a finding of an agency relationship. America/International 1994 Venture v Mau, 2016 NY Slip Op 07915, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT)/JURISDICTION (LONG-ARM, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT)/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT)

You might also like
Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).
A FORECLOSURE ACTION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DOES NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DOES NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
INSURED’S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH INSURER RELIEVED INSURER OF LIABILITY FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.
PARTY AND ITS ATTORNEYS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO INFORM THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF ACTIONS ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE A LOAN ON DEFENDANT’S BEHALF; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION ON A LOAN PROCURED BY DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S ASSISTANCE; “EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO …” CRITERIA IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Not Clear Superior Court Information (SCI) Charged Same Offense as Felony Complaint/SCI and Related Waiver of Indictment Not Valid
THE REMAINDER BENEFICIARIES’ ACTION ALLEGING THE EXECUTOR’S VIOLATION OF A STANDSTILL AGREEMENT, WHICH REQUIRED THE EXECUTOR TO KEEP THE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THE DECEASED’S BUSINESS IN A SEGREGATED ACCOUNT UNTIL THE DAUGHTERS’ REMAINDER INTERESTS WERE DETERMINED, DID NOT VIOLATE THE IN TERROREM CLAUSE OF THE WILL WHICH PROHIBITED THE DAUGHTERS FROM CONTESTING THE WILL, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE... CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED,...