Horwitz v. Sax

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horwitz v. Sax

16 A.D.3d 161, 792 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2239

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 161 (Horwitz v. Sax) 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

Horwitz v. Sax, 16 A.D.3d 161, 792 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered October 16, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over necessary parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that nominal defendant Edward Baroudi, a resident of France, is a necessary party and it is evident that there exists no jurisdictional predicate for joining him in the action. Accordingly, dismissal was warranted because New York courts lack jurisdiction over a necessary party and there is an alternative forum available in Gibraltar, where, it appears, all indispensable parties can been joined (see CPLR 1001 [b]; and see e.g. Matter of Ayres v New York State Commr. of Taxation & Fin., 252 AD2d 808, 810 [1998]; cf. Rocha Toussier y Asociados, S.C. v Rivero, 91 AD2d 137, 141 [1983]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered October 16, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over necessary parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that nominal defendant Edward Baroudi, a resident of France, is a necessary party and it is evident that there exists no jurisdictional predicate for joining him in the action. Accordingly, dismissal was warranted because New York courts lack jurisdiction over a necessary party and there is an alternative forum available in Gibraltar, where, it appears, all indispensable parties can been joined (see CPLR 1001 [b]; and see e.g. Matter of Ayres v New York State Commr. of Taxation & Fin., 252 AD2d 808, 810 [1998]; cf. Rocha Toussier y Asociados, S.C. v Rivero, 91 AD2d 137, 141 [1983]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 161, 792 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horwitz-v-sax-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack