Cybertech Communications Corp. v. Quad International, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cybertech Communications Corp. v. Quad International, Inc.

262 A.D.2d 44, 691 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6408

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

DecidedJune 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 44 (Cybertech Communications Corp. v. Quad International, 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

Cybertech Communications Corp. v. Quad International, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 44, 691 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered January 7, 1999, which dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the complaint reinstated, and the motion to dismiss denied.

Plaintiff Cybertech claims that defendant Quad breached their publisher-representative agreement, in which Cybertech was designated Quad’s nonexclusive sales representative for periodicals and for advertising space in periodicals, by replacing Cybertech with defendant Stephen L. Geller, Inc. as its exclusive advertising representative. Cybertech is an Illinois corporation, Quad is a Florida corporation, and the agreement was executed outside of New York.

Cybertech’s allegations are insufficient to establish jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 301 (see, Laufer v Ostrow, 55 NY2d 305, 309-310; McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268, 272). However, its showing that the parties’ agreement was negotiated to a substantial degree in New York, together with its showing of Quad’s additional New York business contacts, such as its annual board meetings, its sales of magazines and magazine advertising space to and by New York domiciliaries, and its New York sales through its web site, sufficiently establish jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1), our long-arm statute (see, Bialek v Racal-Milgo, Inc., 545 F Supp 25, 33-35; Longines-Wittnaue Watch Co. v Barnes & Reinecke, 15 NY2d 443, 456-[45]*45457, cert denied sub nom. Estwing Mfg. Co. v Singer, 382 US 905; CutCo Indus, v Naughton, 806 F2d 361, 365). The nature and quality of these contacts comprise a sufficient New York nexus to establish that Quad was transacting business here, and there is a connection between the business transacted and the claim asserted (see, McGowan v Smith, supra, at 272).

After careful review, we find sanctions unwarranted against either side. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered January 7, 1999, which dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the complaint reinstated, and the motion to dismiss denied.

Plaintiff Cybertech claims that defendant Quad breached their publisher-representative agreement, in which Cybertech was designated Quad’s nonexclusive sales representative for periodicals and for advertising space in periodicals, by replacing Cybertech with defendant Stephen L. Geller, Inc. as its exclusive advertising representative. Cybertech is an Illinois corporation, Quad is a Florida corporation, and the agreement was executed outside of New York.

Cybertech’s allegations are insufficient to establish jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 301 (see, Laufer v Ostrow, 55 NY2d 305, 309-310; McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268, 272). However, its showing that the parties’ agreement was negotiated to a substantial degree in New York, together with its showing of Quad’s additional New York business contacts, such as its annual board meetings, its sales of magazines and magazine advertising space to and by New York domiciliaries, and its New York sales through its web site, sufficiently establish jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1), our long-arm statute (see, Bialek v Racal-Milgo, Inc., 545 F Supp 25, 33-35; Longines-Wittnaue Watch Co. v Barnes & Reinecke, 15 NY2d 443, 456-[45]*45457, cert denied sub nom. Estwing Mfg. Co. v Singer, 382 US 905; CutCo Indus, v Naughton, 806 F2d 361, 365). The nature and quality of these contacts comprise a sufficient New York nexus to establish that Quad was transacting business here, and there is a connection between the business transacted and the claim asserted (see, McGowan v Smith, supra, at 272).

After careful review, we find sanctions unwarranted against either side. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 44, 691 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cybertech-communications-corp-v-quad-international-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack