Rene Boas and Associates v. Vernier
| Decision Date | 23 March 1965 |
| Citation | 22 A.D.2d 561,257 N.Y.S.2d 487 |
| Parties | RENE BOAS AND ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Georges VERNIER, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eli Ellis, New York City, of counsel (Lucien R. LeLiever and Richard I. Chira, New York City, With him on the brief; Hill, Betts, Yamaoka, Freehill & Longcope, New York City, attorneys), for plaintiff-appellant.
Marc J. Loost, New York City, of counsel (J. Frederic Taylor and Philip K. Hills, Jr., New York City, with him on the brief; Burke & Burke, New York City, attorneys), for defendant-respondent.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and VALENTE, STEVENS, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.
Plaintiff, Rene Boas and Associates, appeals from an order and judgment granting defendant's motion under CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of defendant. The action was brought to recover commissions earned by a business broker and industrial consultant under a written agreement or under a subsequent oral agreement.
The issue is whether the alleged causes of action arose from any act of defendant in the transaction of business within the State, thereby conferring personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1). It is concluded that they did not.
The complaint seeks the agreed commissions earned by plaintiff as broker and consultant in introducing defendant to certain French underwriters and rendering other services leading to the merger of a French corporation of which defendant was principal stockholder and chief executive officer into a new French corporation. In the absence of any showing that the oral agreement with defendant was negotiated or concluded by defendant in New York, or that defendant did any other act with respect to the oral agreement in New York, it cannot be said that the causes of action arose from an act of defendant in the transaction of business within the State (CPLR 302[a]). The fact that a prior written agreement was historically necessary to the inception of the subsequent oral agreement does not alone, for purposes of the jurisdiction statute, support personal jurisdiction.
The written agreement, negotiated and executed in New York by defendant as general manager of the French corporation, required defendant to pay plaintiff an agreed percentage of amounts received in the transfer of a minority interest in the company to a person or business having a base, branch or affiliate in the United States. This writing specified that defendant would not enter into a different type of arrangement with such a person or business without first reaching an agreement with plaintiff as to plaintiff's compensation. Since plaintiff seeks compensation for bringing about an arrangement between defendant and two French individuals rather than a person or business having a base, branch, or affiliate in the United States,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Montreal Trust Company
...York in a fiduciary capacity, jurisdiction cannot be obtained over him in his individual capacity. Cf. Boas and Associates v. Vernier, 22 A.D.2d 561, 257 N.Y.S.2d 487 (1st Dept. 1965). But, we find, the premise of this argument untenable. While it is true that Williams and Schutz were the c......
-
McDonough v. 50 E. 96th St., LLC
... ... McFadden Oil Corp., 71 ... N.Y.2d 460, 468 (1988), citing Rene Boas & Associates ... v. Vernier, 22 A.D.2d 561, 563 (1965); see ... ...
-
Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp.
...our long-arm statute to require the application of the fiduciary shield doctrine based upon its reading of Boas & Assocs. v. Vernier, 22 A.D.2d 561, 257 N.Y.S.2d 487). In Boas, however, plaintiff was suing on a contract and the Appellate Division merely found that, as a matter of substantiv......
-
Gibbons and Beiseigel v Udarus Na Gaeltachta
...(execution of contract outside state does not necessarily preclude exercise of jurisdiction); Rene Boas & Associates v. VernierUNK, 22 A.D.2d 561, 563, 257 N.Y.S.2d 487, 48990 (1st Dep't 1965) (execution of contract within state does not necessarily require exercise of jurisdiction), and th......