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)

/by
You might also like
A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT WARRANT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF 30 POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 9; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE; HAD THE PEOPLE KNOWN DEFENDANT WAS PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE THEY WOULD HAVE SOUGHT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY DEVICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER AFFORDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION.
Motion to Strike Errata Sheet “Correcting” Substantive Discrepancies in Deposition Testimony Should Have Been Granted
HANDWRITTEN PROVISION OF A LETTER OF INTENT CONTROLS, THE LETTER OF INTENT IS NOT A BINDING CONTRACT, BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THE ABSENCE OF A BINDING CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BENEFIT TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS UNIDENTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FREIGHT ELEVATOR WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS AND CODES, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A GATE CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION OF WHICH THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE AWARE, THE OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S PROOF OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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,...