L-3 Communications Corp v. Channel Technologies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

L-3 Communications Corp v. Channel Technologies, Inc.

291 A.D.2d 276, 737 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1599

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 276 (L-3 Communications Corp v. Channel Technologies, Inc.) 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

L-3 Communications Corp v. Channel Technologies, Inc., 291 A.D.2d 276, 737 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 27, 2001, which granted the motion of defendants Channel Technologies and International Transducer Corp. (ITC) to dismiss the complaint as against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, defendant Channel did not, under the subject asset purchase agreement, submit to the jurisdiction of New York State’s courts. The only parties named in the contract as being subject to the forum selection clause are defendant Harris (referred to in the agreement as Sea-Beam) and plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that there was no intent to include Channel, a California corporation, in the contract’s mandatory New York forum selection provision, and, indeed, that Channel was deliberately excluded therefrom (see, Two Guys from Harrison-N.Y. v S.F.R. Realty Assoc., 63 NY2d 396, 403-404). In so concluding, we note the absence of any factual predicate for plaintiffs contention that Channel and its wholly-owned subsidiary, defendant ITC, bear so close a relation to defendant Harris and the subject asset purchase agreement as to have been foreseeably bound by and thus implicitly included within the agreement’s forum selection clause (see, Maritime Ins. Co. Ltd. v M/V “Sea Harmony”, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 6294 1998 WL 214777 [SD NY, May 1, 1998]; cf., Direct Mail Prod. Servs. Ltd. v MBNA Corp., 2000 US Dist LEXIS 12945, *13-14, 2000 WL 1277597, *5 [SD NY, Sept. 7, 2000]). Finally, the motion court correctly concluded that Channel and ITC, California corporations principally situated in California, had not had the minimum contacts with New York necessary to subject them to the jurisdiction of its courts under its long-arm statute. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 27, 2001, which granted the motion of defendants Channel Technologies and International Transducer Corp. (ITC) to dismiss the complaint as against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, defendant Channel did not, under the subject asset purchase agreement, submit to the jurisdiction of New York State’s courts. The only parties named in the contract as being subject to the forum selection clause are defendant Harris (referred to in the agreement as Sea-Beam) and plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that there was no intent to include Channel, a California corporation, in the contract’s mandatory New York forum selection provision, and, indeed, that Channel was deliberately excluded therefrom (see, Two Guys from Harrison-N.Y. v S.F.R. Realty Assoc., 63 NY2d 396, 403-404). In so concluding, we note the absence of any factual predicate for plaintiffs contention that Channel and its wholly-owned subsidiary, defendant ITC, bear so close a relation to defendant Harris and the subject asset purchase agreement as to have been foreseeably bound by and thus implicitly included within the agreement’s forum selection clause (see, Maritime Ins. Co. Ltd. v M/V “Sea Harmony”, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 6294 1998 WL 214777 [SD NY, May 1, 1998]; cf., Direct Mail Prod. Servs. Ltd. v MBNA Corp., 2000 US Dist LEXIS 12945, *13-14, 2000 WL 1277597, *5 [SD NY, Sept. 7, 2000]). Finally, the motion court correctly concluded that Channel and ITC, California corporations principally situated in California, had not had the minimum contacts with New York necessary to subject them to the jurisdiction of its courts under its long-arm statute. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 276, 737 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-3-communications-corp-v-channel-technologies-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack