Fred Simcha Wang v. LSUC

• Decision Date: 10 March 2016
• Parties: FRED SIMCHA WANG, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. LSUC, et al., Defendants–Respondents, John Does 1–10, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

137 A.D.3d 520

27 N.Y.S.3d 131

FRED SIMCHA WANG, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.LSUC, et al., Defendants–Respondents,John Does 1–10, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

March 10, 2016.

Fred Simcha Wang, appellant pro se.

Furman Korneld & Brennan LLP, New York (Stefanie A. Singer of counsel), for LSUC, respondent.

Pepper Hamilton LLP, New York (Adam B. Michaels of counsel), for Dr. Joel Jeffries and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, respondents.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Jeanne A. Barry of counsel), for Dr. Stephen R. Swallow, Dr. Lance L. Hawley and OCCT, respondents.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, KAPNICK, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered September 10, 2014, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to perpetrate an elaborate fraudulent scheme to deprive plaintiff, formerly a licensed Canadian attorney, of his law license in Canada. The defendants include the regulating authority for attorneys in Ontario Canada, three doctors who examined plaintiff, and the professional organizations to which those doctors belong. As determined by the lower court, plaintiff, who bears the burden of showing jurisdiction upon a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8)

, failed to demonstrate that the defendants transacted significant business in New York, and to the extent that any business was transacted, plaintiff failed to demonstrate any connection to the claims asserted in this case (CPLR 302(a) ; O'Brien v. Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 A.D.2d 199, 200, 760 N.Y.S.2d 425 [1st Dept.2003] ; Paterno v. Laser Spine Inst., 24 N.Y.3d 370, 376, 998 N.Y.S.2d 720, 23 N.E.3d 988 [2014] ).

Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that the defendants were subject to conspiracy jurisdiction because he did not sufficiently allege the elements of a conspiracy, or that any part of the conspiracy occurred in New York (CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Mora Hotel Corp., 296 A.D.2d 81, 98, 743 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1st Dept.2002]

, affd. 100 N.Y.2d 215, 762 N.Y.S.2d 5, 792 N.E.2d 155 [2003], cert. denied 540 U.S. 948, 124 S.Ct. 399, 157 L.Ed.2d 279 [2003] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.