Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Juan Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Universal Product Concepts

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Term, First Department


November 22, 2011

JUAN RODRIGUEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSAL PRODUCT CONCEPTS, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered November 16, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Per curiam.

Rodriguez v Universal Prod. Concepts, Inc.

Decided on November 22, 2011

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ

Order (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered November 16, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly dismissed the complaint based upon plaintiff's failure to establish that the California-domiciled defendant transacted business within New York City (see CCA 404[a][1]), by shipping a scooter and battery to plaintiff in New York, on behalf of a nonparty independent retailer located in the State of Minnesota. It is undisputed that defendant was not authorized or registered to conduct business in New York, nor did it contract or was in privity with plaintiff to sell him the scooter in the City of New York. Indeed, defendant neither owns nor leases real estate, nor does it have stores, bank accounts or authorized agents in New York.

Under the totality of the circumstances, defendant's shipments were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to show any purposeful activity in New York City which could form the basis for a finding that defendant had "transact[ed] any business" within the meaning of the applicable long-arm statute (CCA 404[a][1]; see Cushley v Wealth Masters Intl., 29 Misc 3d 144[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52221[U] [2010]; Pugmire v Sunterra Fin. Servs., Inc., 23 Misc 3d 139[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50964[U] [2009]; Jones v Munroe, 2 Misc 3d 24, 25 [2003]). Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction was warranted.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: November 22, 2011

20111122

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.