Heisel v. Safran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heisel v. Safran

120 A.D.2d 969, 503 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57074

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

DecidedMay 23, 1986

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 969 (Heisel v. Safran) 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

Heisel v. Safran, 120 A.D.2d 969, 503 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff has not made a "sufficient start” toward showing that defendants Ebrahimi or Iratex were coconspirators with the other defendants in making misrepresentations in New York State or in soliciting customers here (see, Singer v Bell, 585 F Supp 300; Socialist Workers Party v Attorney Gen. of U. S., 375 F Supp 318; cf. Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463).

Ebrahimi’s and Iratex’s connection with the Homeshare Program in Texas and the activities there provide no indication that they may have been responsible for either the transaction of business in New York State or for a tort committed here. Should plaintiff, through discovery of the remaining defendants or otherwise, obtain facts providing a sufficient start, they may then be in a position to recommence the action against Ebrahimi and Iratex. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Green, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff has not made a "sufficient start” toward showing that defendants Ebrahimi or Iratex were coconspirators with the other defendants in making misrepresentations in New York State or in soliciting customers here (see, Singer v Bell, 585 F Supp 300; Socialist Workers Party v Attorney Gen. of U. S., 375 F Supp 318; cf. Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463).

Ebrahimi’s and Iratex’s connection with the Homeshare Program in Texas and the activities there provide no indication that they may have been responsible for either the transaction of business in New York State or for a tort committed here. Should plaintiff, through discovery of the remaining defendants or otherwise, obtain facts providing a sufficient start, they may then be in a position to recommence the action against Ebrahimi and Iratex. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 969, 503 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heisel-v-safran-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack