De Capriles v. Lugo
| Decision Date | 25 April 2002 |
| Citation | 293 A.D.2d 405,740 N.Y.S.2d 623 |
| Parties | MAGALY C. DE CAPRILES et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>CARMEN C.L. LUGO et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the record shows that the motion court did consider their motion for leave to amend and analyzed the jurisdictional issues in light of the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint. The court properly concluded that leave to amend was unwarranted since plaintiffs' factual allegations were insufficient to support their proposed causes of action (see, Non-Linear Trading Co v Braddis Assoc., 243 AD2d 107, 117), plaintiffs having failed to set forth a prima facie basis for jurisdiction over defendants under CPLR 302 (a) (2). Plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., as the agent of the Venezuelan defendants, committed a tortious act in New York, for the benefit and with the consent and knowledge of defendants, and in furtherance of a conspiracy that included the foreign defendants (cf., In re Sumitomo Copper Litig., 120 F Supp 2d 328). In any event, plaintiffs failed to make out the jurisdictionally requisite substantial connection between the alleged tortious conduct and New York (see, Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 252 AD2d 1, 17-18; see also, LaMarca v Pak-Mor Mfg. Corp., 95 NY2d 210).
Leave for jurisdictional discovery was properly denied since plaintiffs did not show that facts may exist which would warrant the denial of defendants' motion (see, Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 466-467).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Blavatnik, 650591/11.
...the "jurisdictionally requisite substantial connection between the alleged tortious conduct and New York." De Capriles v. Lopez Lugo, 293 A.D.2d 405, 406, 740 N.Y.S.2d 623 (1st Dep't 2002). Defendants persuasively argue that "Norex only alleges that two defendants caused funds to be wired t......
-
McBride v. KPMG Int'l
...could not then be stated that would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over KPMG UK (CPLR 3211 [d]; see de Capriles v. Lugo, 293 A.D.2d 405, 406, 740 N.Y.S.2d 623 1st Dept.2002, lv. dismissed in part, denied in part 98 N.Y.2d 717, 748 N.Y.S.2d 897, 778 N.E.2d 547 2002 ).Plaintiff......
-
Aramid Entm't Fund Ltd. v. Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd.
...and with the consent and knowledge of Bergstein, and in furtherance of a conspiracy that included Bergstein ( see de Capriles v. Lugo, 293 A.D.2d 405, 740 N.Y.S.2d 623 [1st Dept. 2002], lv. dismissed and denied98 N.Y.2d 717, 748 N.Y.S.2d 897, 778 N.E.2d 547 [2002] ). The court properly exer......
-
Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.
...674 (Mo. App. 2002) (plaintiff did not allege facts to support jurisdiction; not entitled to discovery); De Capriles v. Lopez Lugo, 293 App. Div.2d 405, 740 N.Y.S.2d 623 (2002) (leave for jurisdictional discovery was properly denied); cf. Kansas Food Packers, Inc. v. Corpak Inc., 192 F.R.D.......