HBK Master Fund L.P. v. Troika Dialog Usa, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

HBK Master Fund L.P. v. Troika Dialog Usa, Inc.

85 A.D.3d 665, 925 N.Y.S.2d 829

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 28, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 2, 2010, which denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints without prejudice to renew after completion of jurisdictional discovery, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 12, 2011, which granted plaintiff VR Global Partners, L.P’s motion to compel additional jurisdictional discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[666]*666Plaintiffs made a “sufficient start” in demonstrating that the Russian defendants were doing business in New York through their direct or indirect subsidiaries to warrant further discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, including whether the parents exercised control over the subsidiaries and are therefore subject to New York’s long-arm jurisdiction (see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]; Edelman v Taittinger, S.A., 298 AD2d 301, 302 [2002]).

VR Global’s second discovery requests were tailored to elicit information related to the jurisdictional and forum non conveniens issues raised by defendants.

The other issues raised by appellants are not ripe for review at this time. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 2, 2010, which denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints without prejudice to renew after completion of jurisdictional discovery, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 12, 2011, which granted plaintiff VR Global Partners, L.P’s motion to compel additional jurisdictional discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[666]*666Plaintiffs made a “sufficient start” in demonstrating that the Russian defendants were doing business in New York through their direct or indirect subsidiaries to warrant further discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, including whether the parents exercised control over the subsidiaries and are therefore subject to New York’s long-arm jurisdiction (see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]; Edelman v Taittinger, S.A., 298 AD2d 301, 302 [2002]).

VR Global’s second discovery requests were tailored to elicit information related to the jurisdictional and forum non conveniens issues raised by defendants.

The other issues raised by appellants are not ripe for review at this time. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

HBK Master Fund L.P. v. Troika Dialog Usa, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 665, 925 N.Y.S.2d 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

85 A.D.3d 665 (HBK Master Fund L.P. v. Troika Dialog Usa, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related