Joseph v. Siebtechnik

172 A.D.2d 1056, 571 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6328
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 1991·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), plaintiff has the burden of establishing the fact of jurisdiction (Derso v Volkswagen of Am., 159 AD2d 937, 938; Cato Show Print. Co. v Lee, 84 AD2d 947, appeal dismissed 56 NY2d 593). In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted affidavits of two attorneys. Neither of these affidavits included any factual allegations regarding jurisdiction. The thrust of both affidavits was to suggest erroneously that defendant had failed to sustain its burden of proof. Under the circumstances, defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted (see, Schumacher v Sea Craft Indus., 101 AD2d 707). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Joseph v. Siebtechnik, 172 A.D.2d 1056, 571 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

172 A.D.2d 1056 (Joseph v. Siebtechnik) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DUNLOP, EVA E. v. SAINT LEO THE GREAT R.C. CHURCH
125 A.D.3d 1282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. FRISCO MARKETING OF NY LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Frisco Marketing of NY LLC
93 A.D.3d 1352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)