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
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE GRANTED, THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON COVENIENS GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE STIPULATION RE: SHARING HUSBAND’S PENSION AT A FUTURE DATE WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND NEED NOT BE REFORMED; THE STIPULATION WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE REFORMED PURSUANT TO A MOTION, A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CAR DEALER, DUE TO AN ERROR, DID NOT SUBMIT THE CORRECT REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MANDATED FIVE-DAY PERIOD, THAT DEFECT DID NOT INVALIDATE THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE DRIVER INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT; THE DEALER WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
IF A DEFENDANT CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF HIS ARREST, THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE THE ARREST WAS BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE; THE ISSUANCE OF AN I-CARD DEMONSTRATING PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOT, BY ITSELF, ENOUGH; THERE MUST BE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST WAS IN FACT BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE I-CARD (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONFLICTING EXPERT REPORTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CAUSED SERIOUS INJURY DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S PREEXISTING CONDITIONS (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

APPELLATE COURT MAY VACATE A JUDGMENT OR ORDER IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN WHERE... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF...