Cerchia v. v. A. Mesa, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1993 |
| Citation | 595 N.Y.S.2d 212,191 A.D.2d 377 |
| Parties | Joseph CERCHIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. V.A. MESA, INC., Defendant, and Groupy Enterprises, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MURPHY, P.J., and CARRO, KUPFERMAN, ASCH and KASSAL, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about June 1, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant-respondent Groupy Enterprises, Inc. to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously reversed to the extent appealed from, on the law, with costs, and Groupy's motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery of Groupy and V.A. Mesa, Inc.
Plaintiff alleges that in January 1989, at a menswear show in Manhattan, he approached the vice president of defendant V.A. Mesa, Inc. and discussed his representing Mesa's clothing lines in New York. Subsequent negotiations by telephone allegedly resulted in an oral agreement with Mesa's vice president and president that plaintiff would maintain Mesa's New York showroom and act as its exclusive New York sales representative, which he did from February 1989 through April 1991. Plaintiff alleges that he terminated this relationship when Mesa attempted to reduce his commission rate, failed to pay him earned commissions on sales and failed to account for goods shipped in accordance with their agreement.
On April 1, 1991, defendant-respondent Groupy Enterprises, Inc. was incorporated in California, and on January 2, 1992 Mesa was "suspended" by the California Secretary of State for reasons not shown in the record. Mesa and Groupy shared the same president and vice president, and their office and warehouse addresses were also the same. Moreover, one of the two clothing lines for which plaintiff acted as Mesa's representative, "Trio Collezione," was sold by Mesa to Groupy, although Groupy explains that the label was transferred only with respect to women's garments. At issue on this appeal is whether the IAS court correctly granted Groupy's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds before allowing plaintiff to conduct discovery.
In Peterson v. Spartan Industries, 33 N.Y.2d 463, 354 N.Y.S.2d 905, 310 N.E.2d 513, it was stated that under CPLR 3211(d), a plaintiff opposing a motion to dismiss need only show that facts unavailable to the plaintiff may exist which will justify denial of the motion, and need not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kastner v. MacLean
...Peterson v. Spartan Ind., 33 N.Y.2d 463, 466 (1974); Vasquez v. Heidelberg Harris, 265 A.D.2d 225 (1st Dep't 1999); Cerchia v. V.A. Mesa, 191 A.D.2d 377, 378 (1st Dep't 1993); Bordan v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 275 A.D.2d 335, 336 (2d Dep't 2000).IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained abo......
-
Smith v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...§ 3211(d) ; Amsellem v. Host Marriott Corp., 280 A.D.2d 357, 359, 721 N.Y.S.2d 318 (1st Dep't 2001) ; Cerchia v. V.A. Mesa, 191 A.D.2d 377, 378, 595 N.Y.S.2d 212 (1st Dep't 1993) ; Putter v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 25 A.D.3d 539, 540, 807 N.Y.S.2d 624 (2d Dep't 2006) ; Bordan v. North Shor......
-
Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. Van De Wetering
...jurisdiction may exist (Peterson v. Spartan Indus., 33 N.Y.2d 463, 467, 354 N.Y.S.2d 905, 310 N.E.2d 513; Cerchia v. V.A. Mesa, Inc., 191 A.D.2d 377, 378, 595 N.Y.S.2d 212). Ms. Bracht's mere denials of these factual allegations are insufficient to defeat them (see, Murray v. Plessey Inc., ......
-
Lemle v. Lemle
...completion of discovery ( see Halmar Corp. v. Hudson Founds., Inc., 212 A.D.2d 505, 506, 623 N.Y.S.2d 3 [1995]; Cerchia v. V.A. Mesa, Inc., 191 A.D.2d 377, 595 N.Y.S.2d 212 [1993] ). Plaintiff's cause of action seeking a permanent injunction was properly dismissed. To plead a cause of actio......