Kesterson v. Cambo Fotografische Industrie Bv

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kesterson v. Cambo Fotografische Industrie Bv

30 A.D.3d 301, 819 N.Y.S.2d 222

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

DecidedJune 22, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 301 (Kesterson v. Cambo Fotografische Industrie Bv) 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

Kesterson v. Cambo Fotografische Industrie Bv, 30 A.D.3d 301, 819 N.Y.S.2d 222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 27, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendant Cambo’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims by the Calumet defendants, and for the alternative relief of a change of venue on inconvenient forum grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Notwithstanding its burden in the first instance of showing entitlement to summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds, Cambo failed to demonstrate lack of substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce, or an inability reasonably to anticipate that its allegedly tortious acts would have consequences in this state (see CPLR 302 [a] [3] [ii]). Nor did Cambo demonstrate the requisite hardship to warrant a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 327. Concur—Tom, J.P, Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 27, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendant Cambo’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims by the Calumet defendants, and for the alternative relief of a change of venue on inconvenient forum grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Notwithstanding its burden in the first instance of showing entitlement to summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds, Cambo failed to demonstrate lack of substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce, or an inability reasonably to anticipate that its allegedly tortious acts would have consequences in this state (see CPLR 302 [a] [3] [ii]). Nor did Cambo demonstrate the requisite hardship to warrant a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 327. Concur—Tom, J.P, Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 301, 819 N.Y.S.2d 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kesterson-v-cambo-fotografische-industrie-bv-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack