Travelers Indem. Co. v. Inoue
| Decision Date | 25 June 1985 |
| Citation | 490 N.Y.S.2d 506,111 A.D.2d 686 |
| Parties | TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY a/s/o Golodetz Trading Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hideo INOUE, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. West, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
R.M. Jarvis, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and ROSS, ASCH and ELLERIN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 18, 1984 dismissing the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, with costs and disbursements. Appeal from the Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 8, 1984, dismissed as subsumed in the judgment, without costs.
Golodetz Trading Corp. manages merchant vessels and maintains its principal place of business in New York County. Defendants Neptune and Poseidon, who are engaged in the business of, respectively, provisioning and storing merchant vessels and making ship repairs, are Japanese corporations maintaining their main places of business in Yokohama, Japan. Defendant Inoue is the president of both Neptune and Poseidon and resides and works in Yokohama, Japan.
It is alleged that while Golodetz transacted business with the defendants during 1980 and 1981, Inoue conspired with Golodetz's Vice President, one Christakis, to give Christakis kickbacks in exchange for payment of padded or otherwise fraudulent invoices submitted by the defendants to Golodetz in the total amount of $695,000.
Plaintiff Travelers compensated Golodetz in this amount under its fidelity bond, and, thereafter, as subrogee, it brought the instant action against these Japanese defendants in Supreme Court, New York County. The complaint alleges that Christakis and the defendants conspired to defraud Golodetz. In response to the motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction, plaintiff submitted affidavits from Inoue admitting the kickback scheme, an affidavit from plaintiff's investigator detailing the conspiracy and an affidavit alleging that Christakis approved every invoice in the New York office.
The evidentiary facts submitted in these affidavits in conjunction with the allegations of the complaint establish the requisite jurisdiction over the defendants and sufficiently meet plaintiff's burden of sustaining the allegation of personal jurisdiction so as to defeat the motion to dismiss the complaint. Lamarr v. Klein, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc.
...has been recognized as a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. (See, Travelers Indemnity Company v. Inoue, 111 A.D.2d 686, 490 N.Y.S.2d 506; American Broadcasting v. Hernreich, 40 A.D.2d 800, 338 N.Y.S.2d 146; Lamarr v. Klein, supra, 35 A.D.2d 248, 315 N.Y.......
-
Laborers Loc. 17 Health Benef. Fund v. Philip Morris
...Oct. 29, 1997); Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Linter Group Ltd., 782 F.Supp. 215, 223 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Inoue, 111 A.D.2d 686, 490 N.Y.S.2d 506, 507 (1st Dep't 1985).10 Before jurisdiction based on a conspiracy can be upheld under New York law, however, the plaintiff must ......
-
Ace Decade Holdings Ltd. v. Ubs AG
...intending that it injure a resident of New York, he has acted within New York for jurisdictional purposes. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Inoue, 111 A.D.2d 686, 687 (1stDep't 1985); see also N. Valley Partners, LLC v. Jenkins, 2009 WL 1058162, at *5 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 14, 2009). But bot......
-
SOS Capital v. Recycling Paper Partners of PA, LLC
...when they made the alleged fraudulent representations. Instead, plaintiff relies on this Court's holding in Travelers Indem. Co. v Inoue (111 A.D.2d 686 [1st Dept 1985]), to argue that physical presence is not a prerequisite for personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2). However, plaintiff......