Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P. v. Dreyfuss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P. v. Dreyfuss

266 A.D.2d 51, 698 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11588

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 51 (Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P. v. Dreyfuss) 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

Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P. v. Dreyfuss, 266 A.D.2d 51, 698 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 5, 1999, which, in an action to recover a legal fee, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The individual defendant’s numerous trips to New York admittedly for the specific purpose of meeting with plaintiff to obtain legal services on behalf of the corporate defendants constituted purposeful activity sufficient to confer jurisdiction over himself as well as the corporate defendants (see, Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen v Shreve City Apts., 147 AD2d 327, 332; Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 470-471). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 5, 1999, which, in an action to recover a legal fee, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The individual defendant’s numerous trips to New York admittedly for the specific purpose of meeting with plaintiff to obtain legal services on behalf of the corporate defendants constituted purposeful activity sufficient to confer jurisdiction over himself as well as the corporate defendants (see, Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen v Shreve City Apts., 147 AD2d 327, 332; Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 470-471). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 51, 698 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaye-scholer-fierman-hays-handler-l-l-p-v-dreyfuss-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack