Jones v. Munroe

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Munroe

2 Misc. 3d 24, 773 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1702

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 2 Misc. 3d 24 (Jones v. Munroe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Munroe, 2 Misc. 3d 24, 773 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[25]*25OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered June 9, 2003 affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly dismissed the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to establish that the Florida domiciled defendants transacted business within New York City (see, CCA 404 [a] [1]) by selling an automobile to plaintiff through “eBay,” an on-line auction house. The isolated sales transaction, the result of “random” and “attenuated” contacts, was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction (see, Winfield Collection v McCauley, 105 F Supp 2d 746, 749 [ED Mich 2000]; Metcalf v Lawson, 148 NH 35, 39-40, 802 A2d 1221, 1226 [2002]), particularly in these circumstances where delivery of the car undisputedly was made in Florida (cf., Jardin Fashions of Paris v Flying Tiger Line, 110 AD2d 587 [1985]). Nor did defendants’ conduct in sending faxes and e-mails or making phone calls to New York City constitute the transaction of business within the meaning of the applicable long-arm statute (see generally, Granat v Bochner, 268 AD2d 365 [2000]).

Suarez, EJ., McCooe and Gangel-Jacob, JJ., concur.

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

[25]*25OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered June 9, 2003 affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly dismissed the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to establish that the Florida domiciled defendants transacted business within New York City (see, CCA 404 [a] [1]) by selling an automobile to plaintiff through “eBay,” an on-line auction house. The isolated sales transaction, the result of “random” and “attenuated” contacts, was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction (see, Winfield Collection v McCauley, 105 F Supp 2d 746, 749 [ED Mich 2000]; Metcalf v Lawson, 148 NH 35, 39-40, 802 A2d 1221, 1226 [2002]), particularly in these circumstances where delivery of the car undisputedly was made in Florida (cf., Jardin Fashions of Paris v Flying Tiger Line, 110 AD2d 587 [1985]). Nor did defendants’ conduct in sending faxes and e-mails or making phone calls to New York City constitute the transaction of business within the meaning of the applicable long-arm statute (see generally, Granat v Bochner, 268 AD2d 365 [2000]).

Suarez, EJ., McCooe and Gangel-Jacob, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Misc. 3d 24, 773 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-munroe-nyappterm-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack