Joseph v. Siebtechnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Siebtechnik

172 A.D.2d 1056, 571 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6328

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1056 (Joseph v. Siebtechnik) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1056, 571 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-siebtechnik-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack