Mahtani v. C. Ramon, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1990 |
| Citation | 168 A.D.2d 371,562 N.Y.S.2d 695 |
| Parties | M.B. MAHTANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. RAMON, INC., Elbee International, Inc. and H.K. Shah, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and ROSS, ROSENBERGER, ASCH and WALLACH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered May 7, 1990, granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint upon the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and inappropriate forum, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, a New York resident, brought this action for declaratory and monetary relief arising out of transactions which concededly took place in New Jersey. On a motion to dismiss the complaint, defendant H.K. Shah ("Shah"), president of the corporate defendants named in the complaint, submitted an affidavit alleging, essentially, that neither he nor any of the corporate defendants have any contacts or connection with this State and do not transact business here.
This action arises out of an allegedly usurious loan to plaintiff, a New York resident, as evidenced by a promissory note to the corporate defendant, C. Ramon, Inc., in the amount of $20,000.
The defendants deny any residence in New York, or that they have ever transacted business here.
It was plaintiff's burden to prove that defendant transacted business within the State pursuant to CPLR § 302(a)(1), (See, Carte v. Parkoff, 152 A.D.2d 615, 543 N.Y.S.2d 718). Vague references by plaintiff to discussions had in New York which could have taken place either before or long after the transaction complained of fail to demonstrate purposeful activity by the defendants in this State that was undertaken in connection with the transactions at issue. At best, plaintiff's allegations barely suffice to demonstrate that there was an attempt to settle differences, with respect to a preexisting contract which, in and of itself, does not support the exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this case. (See, e.g., Bankers Commercial Corporation v. Alto, Inc., 30 A.D.2d 517, 289 N.Y.S.2d 993).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coast to Coast Energy, Inc. v. Gasarch
...to; and the allegations of Wampler's alleged misrepresentations are provided in only very general terms (see Mahtani v. C. Ramon, 168 A.D.2d 371, 562 N.Y.S.2d 695 [1st Dept.1990] ). It is not alleged that Wampler negotiated with a party, and the center of gravity of the contract was in Trin......
-
Coast to Coast Energy, Inc. v. Gasarch
...to; and the allegations of Wampler's alleged misrepresentations are provided in only very general terms (see Mahtani v. C. Ramon, 168 A.D.2d 371, 562 N.Y.S.2d 695 [1st Dept.1990] ). It is not alleged that Wampler negotiated with a party, and the center of gravity of the contract was in Trin......