Arouh v. Budget Leasing, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arouh v. Budget Leasing, Inc.

63 A.D.3d 506, 883 N.Y.S.2d 4

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 11, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 506 (Arouh v. Budget Leasing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arouh v. Budget Leasing, Inc., 63 A.D.3d 506, 883 N.Y.S.2d 4 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered May 2, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s negotiation of the potential purchase of an automobile via e-mail and telephone, which was initiated by plaintiff after viewing the car on defendant’s web site, is insufficient to constitute the “transaction” of business within New York (see Granat v Bochner, 268 AD2d 365 [2000]), and, since the car was to be picked up in Texas, there was no contract to “supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [1]). Defendant’s web site, which described available cars and featured a link for e-mail contact but did not permit a customer to purchase a car, was not a projection of defendant into the state (see Haber v Studium, Inc., 22 Misc 3d 1129[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50368DJ], *4-5 [2009]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Nardelli, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered May 2, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s negotiation of the potential purchase of an automobile via e-mail and telephone, which was initiated by plaintiff after viewing the car on defendant’s web site, is insufficient to constitute the “transaction” of business within New York (see Granat v Bochner, 268 AD2d 365 [2000]), and, since the car was to be picked up in Texas, there was no contract to “supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [1]). Defendant’s web site, which described available cars and featured a link for e-mail contact but did not permit a customer to purchase a car, was not a projection of defendant into the state (see Haber v Studium, Inc., 22 Misc 3d 1129[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50368DJ], *4-5 [2009]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Nardelli, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 506, 883 N.Y.S.2d 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arouh-v-budget-leasing-inc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack