Khalife v. Audi Saradar Private Bank SAL

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khalife v. Audi Saradar Private Bank SAL

129 A.D.3d 468, 11 N.Y.S.3d 573

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

DecidedJune 9, 2015

Docket652058/12 15346A 15346

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 468 (Khalife v. Audi Saradar Private Bank SAL) 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

Khalife v. Audi Saradar Private Bank SAL, 129 A.D.3d 468, 11 N.Y.S.3d 573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered June 19, 2014, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered June 9, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and failure to plead foreign law under CPLR 3016 (e), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The court properly determined that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant bank because there was no articulable nexus or substantial relationship between the securities transactions executed through defendant bank’s omnibus trading account with a US bank account and the freezing of plaintiffs’ bank accounts in Lebanon by defendant bank and the Lebanese authorities. Further, none of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiffs contain any element relying upon the US securities transactions (see Licci v Lebanese Can. Bank, SAL, 20 NY3d 327, 340-341 [2012]). Instead, all four claims are based solely upon actions taken by defendant bank in Lebanon.

In light of the lack of personal jurisdiction, we need not determine whether the complaint was subject to dismissal on forum non conveniens or CPLR 3016 (e) grounds (see Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574, 579 [1980]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered June 19, 2014, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered June 9, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and failure to plead foreign law under CPLR 3016 (e), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The court properly determined that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant bank because there was no articulable nexus or substantial relationship between the securities transactions executed through defendant bank’s omnibus trading account with a US bank account and the freezing of plaintiffs’ bank accounts in Lebanon by defendant bank and the Lebanese authorities. Further, none of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiffs contain any element relying upon the US securities transactions (see Licci v Lebanese Can. Bank, SAL, 20 NY3d 327, 340-341 [2012]). Instead, all four claims are based solely upon actions taken by defendant bank in Lebanon.

In light of the lack of personal jurisdiction, we need not determine whether the complaint was subject to dismissal on forum non conveniens or CPLR 3016 (e) grounds (see Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574, 579 [1980]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 468, 11 N.Y.S.3d 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khalife-v-audi-saradar-private-bank-sal-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack