You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE...
,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a memorandum decision that does not lay out the facts, determined that, although the defendant directors on the board of Gerova did not reside or do business in New York, other Gerova defendants participated in the fraudulent scheme in New York thereby providing a sufficient basis for long-arm jurisdiction (the decision doesn’t indicate what “Gerova” is):

The Supreme Court properly concluded that defendants are subject to jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute because they were part of a conspiracy that involved the commission of tortious acts in New York (CPLR 302[a][2]…). Defendants were directors on Gerova’s board during most of the time when Gerova was involved in a fraudulent scheme. The amended complaint details the conspiracy to commit fraud using Gerova, the agreements … to loot Wimbledon (plaintiff), and Wimbledon’s resulting insolvency … . Although defendants did not reside or do business in New York, other Gerova defendants were in New York or interacted regularly with New York, including one of the masterminds of the fraudulent scheme … . Regarding their overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants’ approval of a Gerova proxy statement on which they are listed and which seeks approval of the sham acquisition of a reinsurance company, their receipt of “hush money” to ignore certain red flags at Gerova, and their failure to correct misrepresentations or disclose material information to the public sufficed at this stage. Although defendants did not mastermind the conspiracy, their receipt of “hush money” allows the reasonable inference that they exerted “control” to the extent that the fraud could not have been accomplished without their acquiescence to the proxy and other misconduct … . Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Weston Capital Mgt. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02903, First Dept 4-26-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION  (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, CONSPIRACY ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/CONSPIRACY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, FRAUDULENT SCHEME, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF AN ALLEGED BROKEN LOCK, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AS OPPOSED TO AN INVITED GUEST, AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS THE VICTIM OF A TARGETED ATTACK, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PHYSICAL INCAPACITY CAN BE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, BUT THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY DOES NOT TOLL THE ONE YEAR AND 90 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
Heavy Shelves Bolted to the Wall Constituted a “Structure” and Dismantling the Shelves Constituted “Demolition” within the Meaning of the Labor Law
The “Physical Intrusion” by the Police Officer (Tapping the Defendant’s Pocket) Was Not Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime—The Subsequent Frisk of the Defendant Was Similarly Not Justified—The Arrest Was Therefore Invalid–All Seized Items and Statements Made by the Defendant Should Have Been Suppressed
PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE IT ACCRUED WHEN DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED UPON ARRAIGNMENT, NOT WHEN HE WAS RELEASED UPON COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Failure to Allege “Demand Futility” as Required Under Delaware Law Required Dismissal of the Derivative Causes of Action
THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE... DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S RE THE CLIENT’S...