C-Life Group Ltd. v. Generra Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

C-Life Group Ltd. v. Generra Co.

235 A.D.2d 267, 652 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 267 (C-Life Group Ltd. v. Generra Co.) 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

C-Life Group Ltd. v. Generra Co., 235 A.D.2d 267, 652 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 12, 1995, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review a prior order, same court and Justice, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties’ initial, 45-minute meeting in New York was clearly exploratory in nature, leading to nothing more than a proposal that was itself the subject of further negotiations over the phone, by mail, and in meetings outside of New York. Such is not a transaction of business in New York within the meaning of CPLR 302 (a) (1) (see, Liederman Assocs. v Robotool Ltd., 154 AD2d 515). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 12, 1995, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review a prior order, same court and Justice, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties’ initial, 45-minute meeting in New York was clearly exploratory in nature, leading to nothing more than a proposal that was itself the subject of further negotiations over the phone, by mail, and in meetings outside of New York. Such is not a transaction of business in New York within the meaning of CPLR 302 (a) (1) (see, Liederman Assocs. v Robotool Ltd., 154 AD2d 515). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 267, 652 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-life-group-ltd-v-generra-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack