Catauro v. Goldome Bank for Sav.
| Decision Date | 11 January 1993 |
| Citation | 189 A.D.2d 747,592 N.Y.S.2d 422 |
| Parties | Phyllis F. CATAURO, Respondent, v. GOLDOME BANK FOR SAVINGS, Defendant, Stephen S. Lefrak, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Andrea S. Procario, White Plains, for appellant.
Seymour Reitknecht, New York City, for respondent.
Andrew R. Cooper, New York City, for defendant Goldome Bank For Sav.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and THOMPSON, BRACKEN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the defendant Stephen S. Lefrak appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated November 20, 1990, as denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that the appellant Stephen S. Lefrak used a power of attorney to withdraw all the moneys on deposit in a joint account she had maintained in a New York bank with Lefrak's late father, Israel Lefrak. The appellant was served with the summons and complaint in St. Louis, Missouri. Thereafter, he moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. In his affidavit, the appellant, a Missouri resident, acknowledged that he called the New York bank from Missouri and inquired as to the procedure for closing the account and withdrawing the funds. He stated further that he mailed letters to the bank, enclosing the bankbook and the power of attorney. Thereafter, he received the money on deposit by check in Missouri. The court denied his motion. We affirm.
CPLR 302(a)(1) provides that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who in person or through an agent "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state". "It is a 'single act statute' and proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the appellant never enters New York, so long as the [appellant's] activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted" (Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467, 527 N.Y.S.2d 195, 522 N.E.2d 40; see also, Reiner & Co. v. Schwartz, 41 N.Y.2d 648, 651-652, 394 N.Y.S.2d 844, 363 N.E.2d 551). Whether an appellant has engaged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker
...plaintiff in New York pursuant to such representation, though defendants never entered the state); Catauro v. Goldome Bank for Sav., 189 A.D.2d 747, 748, 592 N.Y.S.2d 422, 422 (2d Dep't 1993) (finding jurisdiction where Missouri defendant called a New York bank with an inquiry, "mailed lett......
-
Sullivan v. Bunnell
...the notes and appellant's suit for collection is so obvious as to require no elaboration.").20 See Catauro v. Goldome Bank for Sav., 189 A.D.2d 747, 748, 592 N.Y.S.2d 422 (N.Y App. Div. 1993) ; Smith v. Lanier, 998 S.W.2d 324, 334 (Tex. App. 1999). But see Cohn v. Woolin, 971 So.2d 868, 871......
-
Launer v. Buena Vista Winery, Inc., CV-95-1980 (DGT).
...to confer jurisdiction in New York requires an examination of the totality of circumstances." Catauro v. Goldome Bank for Savings, 189 A.D.2d 747, 592 N.Y.S.2d 422 (2d Dep't 1993). Of particular significance here is that New York's long-arm statute, N.Y.Civ.Prac. & Proc. § 302, looks to whe......
-
Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Institute, Inc.
...totality of the circumstances to determine whether an adequate basis for jurisdiction has been alleged. Catauro v. Goldome Bank for Savings, 189 A.D.2d 747, 592 N.Y.S.2d 422, 423 (1993); Painewebber Inc. v. WHV, Inc., 95 Civ. 0052, 1995 WL 296398, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, Accepting plaintiff......