Blogs

Posts Categorized: Jurisdiction

Posted: October 10, 2017

Plaintiff Fails to Provide Evidence Showing Jurisdiction Over Foreign Shipping Company

On September 26, 2017, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Sonic Finance Inc. v. Prima Bulkship Partnership Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op. 32033(U), dismissing parties because of the plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence showing that the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, explaining: Here, plaintiffs do not... Read more »

Posted: October 7, 2017

Reaching Out to New York Bank to Negotiate Loan Agreements Created Personal Jurisdiction

On September 25, 2017, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Bank of India, N.Y. Branch v. Essar Steel Holdings Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op. 32032(U), holding that reaching out to New York to negotiate loan agreements created personal jurisdiction, explaining: In this case, BOI-NY has met its prima... Read more »

Posted: September 27, 2017

Court Rejects Allegations of Conspiracy-Based Personal Jurisdiction

On September 8, 2017, Justice Emerson of the Suffolk County Commercial Division issued a decision in Katherine Sales & Sourcing, Inc. v. Fiorella, 2017 NY Slip Op. 51135(U), rejecting allegations of conspiracy-based jurisdiction, explaining: CPLR 302(a)(2) permits the New York courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary who commits a tortious act within the... Read more »

Posted: September 19, 2017

Defendant Cannot Amend Answer to Assert Defense of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

On September 11, 2017, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in REDF-Organic Recovery, LLC v. Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op. 31935(U), holding that a defendant cannot amend its answer to assert a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, explaining: CPLR 3025[b] provides that leave to amend... Read more »

Posted: July 14, 2017

Non-Parties Bound by Contract’s Forum Selection Clause

On June 27, 2017, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial division issued a decision in Project Cricket Acquisition, Inc. v. Florida Capital Partners, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op. 31383(U), holding that non-parties were bound by the arbitration provision of contracts they had signed on behalf of business entities, explaining: Johnson, as non-party to... Read more »

Posted: June 29, 2017

Telephone and E-mail Communications to New York Insufficient to Create Personal Jurisdiction

On June 22, 2017, the First Department issued a decision in Ripplewood Advisors, LLC v. Callidus Capital SIA, 2017 NY Slip Op. 05157, holding that telephone and e-mail communications with New York were insufficient to create personal jurisdiction, explaining: New York does not have personal jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), as they did... Read more »

Posted: June 12, 2017

Spanish Defendant’s Travel to, and Failure to Pay Commissions in, New York Creates Jurisdiction

On June 8, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in D&R Global Selections, S.L. v. Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro, 2017 NY Slip Op. 04494, holding that a defendant’s travel to, and failure to pay commissions in, New York was sufficient to create personal jurisdiction in New York, explaining: CPLR 302 (a) (1) requires... Read more »

Posted: May 23, 2017

Court Upholds Jurisdiction Based on Conspiracy

On May 16, 2017, the First Department issued a decision in FIA Leveraged Fund Ltd. v. Grant Thornton LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op. 03887, upholding a decision finding that personal jurisdiction based on conspiracy had been adequately alleged, explaining: The remaining possibility for obtaining jurisdiction over defendants-appellants is conspiracy jurisdiction (see e.g. Lawati v Montague... Read more »

Posted: May 6, 2017

No Veil Piercing Jurisdiction Unless Defendant Used Corporate Form to Harm or Defraud

On April 25, 2017, Justice Singh of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Gliklad v. Deripaska, 2017 NY Slip Op. 50549(U), holding that there could be no personal jurisdiction based on veil piercing unless the corporate form had been used to harm or defraud the plaintiff, explaining: There is an insufficient... Read more »