Libra Global Tech. Serv. v. Telemedia Int'l

• Decision Date: 16 January 2001
• Parties: (A.D.1 Dept. 2001) Libra Global Technology Services (UK) Limited, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Telemedia International, Ltd., Defendant-Respondent. 2946 : FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 53

719 N.Y.S.2d 53 (A.D.1 Dept. 2001)

Libra Global Technology Services (UK) Limited, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Telemedia International, Ltd., Defendant-Respondent.

2946

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

January 16, 2001

Christopher M. Paparella, for Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Robert B. Davidson, for Defendant-Respondent.

Rosenberger, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 29, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant's cross motion to confirm the referee's report dated September 14, 1999, which found that plaintiffs did not prove that New York had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, denied plaintiff's cross motion to reject the referee's report, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court properly found that personal jurisdiction over defendant Telemedia International had not been obtained under CPLR 301, since Telemedia-USA, the New York premises of which were used in connection with the negotiation of the contract sued upon, although a wholly owned subsidiary of Telemedia International, was not a "mere department" thereof (see, Delagi v Volkswagenwerk AG of Wolfsburg, 29 N.Y.2d 426, 432; Taca Intl. Airlines v Rolls-Royce of England, 15 N.Y.2d 97, 102). Nor was Telemedia-USA acting as Telemedia International's agent in the State of New York for jurisdictional purposes (cf., Frummer v Hilton Hotels Intl., 19 N.Y.2d 533, cert denied 389 U.S. 923).

Plaintiffs also failed to establish jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a) (1), New York's long-arm statute, since Telemedia International did not "project" itself into New York for jurisdictional purposes via the 45-minute video-conference, during which the parties negotiated a portion of their contract for the provision of worldwide telecommunications services (see, Worldwide Futgol Assocs. v Event Entertainment, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 173, 177). Further, where, as here, a defendant has signed a contract outside of this State, a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over that defendant pursuant to CPLR 302(a) (1) based simply on the circumstance that the plaintiff signed in New York (see, Std. Wine & Liquor Co. v Bombay Spirits Co., 20 N.Y.2d 13, 17; A. Millner Co. v Noudar, Lda, 24 A.D.2d 326, 329-330) Finally, jurisdiction under the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1) cannot be based upon the...