You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE SPANISH COMPANIES OPERATING IN SPAIN,...

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE SPANISH COMPANIES OPERATING IN SPAIN, DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK’S LONG-ARM JURISDICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the appellate division, determined that, although both plaintiff and defendant are businesses based in Spain, there were sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction. Defendant’s wine was distributed by a New York company, Kobrand. “Through November 2006, defendant paid commissions to plaintiff in Spain on wine defendant sold to Kobrand. In or around January 2007, defendant stopped paying commissions to plaintiff even as defendant continued to sell wine to Kobrand. Defendant contends that its obligation to pay commissions under the oral agreement expired after one year:”

… [N]ot only was defendant physically present in New York on several occasions, but its activities here resulted in “‘the purposeful creation of a continuing relationship with a New York corporation'”… . Defendant’s contacts with New York establish that defendant purposefully availed itself of “the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”… . …

* * * … [T]he parties’ oral agreement was not performed “wholly in Spain” … . Rather … both sides engaged in activities in New York in furtherance of their agreement. There is an articulable nexus or substantial relationship between defendant’s New York activities and the parties’ contract, defendant’s alleged breach thereof, and potential damages. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff’s claim arises from defendant’s transaction of business in New York. …

… [D]efendant has established minimum contacts with New York by visiting the state on multiple occasions to promote its wine with the purpose of finding a United States distributor and thereafter selling wine to a New York-based distributor. … Having done so, defendant could reasonably foresee having to defend a lawsuit in New York. D&R Global Selections, S.L. v Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro, 2017 NY Slip Op 04494, CtApp 6-8-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE SPANISH COMPANIES, DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK’S LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE TWO SPANISH COMPANIES, DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK’S LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)

You might also like
Non-Resident Attorneys Must Maintain a Physical Office in New York State to Practice in New York
Complaint Pursuant to the “Whistleblower” Statute Need Not Identify the Particular Statute or Regulation Alleged to Have Been Violated by the Employer
PURSUANT TO NEW YORK CITY CIVIL COURT ACT 1808, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR ISSUE PRECLUSION DOES NOT APPLY TO SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS, BUT RES JUDICATA OR CLAIM PRECLUSION DOES APPLY TO SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS (CT APP). ​
MONITORING AND RECORDING PHONE CALLS MADE BY PRETRIAL DETAINEES WHO ARE NOTIFIED THE CALLS ARE MONITORED AND RECORDED DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE RECORDINGS MAY BE SHARED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTORS WITHOUT A WARRANT (CT APP).
ARGUING FOR LENIENCY IN SENTENCING DOES NOT PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SENTENCING WAS VINDICTIVE (CT APP).
In a Sexual Abuse Case, Prosecutor’s Hypothetical Questions to Expert Which Mirrored Complainant’s Testimony Constituted Improper Bolstering
The Medical Examiner Who Conducted an Autopsy of Plaintiffs’ 17-Year-Old Son Upon the Son’s Death in an Auto Accident Was Not Under a Statutory or Ministerial Duty to Return the Brain or to Inform Plaintiffs He Had Removed The Brain for Further Examination and Testing
DOCTORS, WHO ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECTS OF DRUGS, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE DRIVEN BY THE PATIENT.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S DETERMINATION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED... DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE...