Juron v. Dranoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Juron v. Dranoff

180 A.D.2d 439

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 439 (Juron v. Dranoff) 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

Juron v. Dranoff, 180 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lubis, J.), entered on or about April 5, 1991, which denied plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant Dranoff & Patrizio’s defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts to grant the motion only to the extent of directing that an immediate hearing be held to determine the jurisdictional issue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As the record does not conclusively establish when and where the parties’ fee-sharing arrangement was made, plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was properly denied (see, Firegreen Ltd. v Claxton, 160 AD2d 409, 411). However, in the interest of judicial economy, and as both parties consent, the question of jurisdiction should not await trial but should be decided immediately (see, Rochas Tousssier y Asociados v Rivero, 91 AD2d 137, 140). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lubis, J.), entered on or about April 5, 1991, which denied plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant Dranoff & Patrizio’s defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts to grant the motion only to the extent of directing that an immediate hearing be held to determine the jurisdictional issue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As the record does not conclusively establish when and where the parties’ fee-sharing arrangement was made, plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was properly denied (see, Firegreen Ltd. v Claxton, 160 AD2d 409, 411). However, in the interest of judicial economy, and as both parties consent, the question of jurisdiction should not await trial but should be decided immediately (see, Rochas Tousssier y Asociados v Rivero, 91 AD2d 137, 140). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juron-v-dranoff-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack