Jacobs v. 201 Stephenson Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | 2014-11007, Index No. 600094/14. |
| Citation | 30 N.Y.S.3d 134,138 A.D.3d 693,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 02621 |
| Parties | Sholom JACOBS, et al., appellants, v. 201 STEPHENSON CORPORATION, et al., defendants, Douglas P. McManamy, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
138 A.D.3d 693
30 N.Y.S.3d 134
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 02621
Sholom JACOBS, et al., appellants,
v.
201 STEPHENSON CORPORATION, et al., defendants,
Douglas P. McManamy, et al., respondents.
2014-11007, Index No. 600094/14.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 6, 2016.
Novak, Juhase & Stern LLP, Cedarhurst, N.Y. (Alexander Novak and Orlee Fishkin of counsel), for appellants.
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Anthony P. Colavita, Marianne S. Conklin, and Jake W. Bedor of counsel), for respondents.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered October 20, 2014, as, upon reargument, in effect, vacated its original determination in an order entered June 24, 2014, denying the motion of the defendants Douglas P. McManamy and McManamy Jackson P.C., pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, and thereupon granted the motion to dismiss.
ORDERED that the order entered October 20, 2014, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs, Sholom Jacobs and 326 Coy Burgess Road, LLC, are domiciliaries of the State of New York. The defendants Douglas P. McManamy, an attorney, and McManamy Jackson PC, a law firm (hereinafter together the defendants) are domiciliaries of the State of Georgia. In 2014, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants and others seeking damages for, inter alia, alleged fraud in connection with out-of-state real estate transactions. Insofar as asserted against the defendants, the complaint alleged a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice and one sounding in fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants made a pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. In an order entered June 24, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the motion. Thereafter, the defendants moved for leave to reargue their motion. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
“Although the ultimate burden of proof regarding personal
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chen v. Guo Liang Lu
...881 N.E.2d 830 ; Talbot v. Johnson Newspaper Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 827, 829, 527 N.Y.S.2d 729, 522 N.E.2d 1027 ; Jacobs v. 201 Stephenson Corp., 138 A.D.3d 693, 694, 30 N.Y.S.3d 134 ; Paterno v. Laser Spine Inst., 112 A.D.3d at 39–40, 973 N.Y.S.2d 681 ). “ ‘Purposeful activities are those with w......
-
America/International 1994 Venture v. Mau
...make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court (see Jacobs v. 201 Stephenson Corp., 138 A.D.3d 693, 693–694, 30 N.Y.S.3d 134 ; Whitcraft v. Runyon, 123 A.D.3d 811, 812, 999 N.Y.S.2d 124 ; Daniel B. Katz & Assoc. Corp. v. Midland Rushmore,......
-
Margolin v. Savage Youth the Film, LLC, 19-609359
...was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court" ( Mau , 146 A.D.3d 40, 51, 42 N.Y.S.3d 188 ; see Jacobs v. 201 Stephenson Corp ., 138 A.D.3d 693, 693-694, 30 N.Y.S.3d 134 [2016] )."To determine whether a non-domiciliary may be sued in New York, [the Court] first determine[s] whether ......
-
Leuthner v. Homewood Suites by Hilton
...make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court (see Jacobs v. 201 Stephenson Corp., 138 A.D.3d 693, 693–694, 30 N.Y.S.3d 134 ; Whitcraft v. Runyon, 123 A.D.3d 811, 812, 999 N.Y.S.2d 124 ; Daniel B. Katz & Assoc. Corp. v. Midland Rushmore,......