London v. Versus Technology, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

London v. Versus Technology, Inc.

256 A.D.2d 183, 683 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13721

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 183 (London v. Versus Technology, 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

London v. Versus Technology, Inc., 256 A.D.2d 183, 683 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered July 3, 1997, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that there was a sufficient showing that defendant engaged in purposeful business activity within the State to subject it to the jurisdiction of New York courts in this action (see, CPLR 302 [a] [1]; Reiner & Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648; Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v [184]*184Barnes & Reinecke, 15 NY2d 443, cert denied sub nom. Estwing Mfg. Co. v Singer, 382 US 905). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, 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 July 3, 1997, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that there was a sufficient showing that defendant engaged in purposeful business activity within the State to subject it to the jurisdiction of New York courts in this action (see, CPLR 302 [a] [1]; Reiner & Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648; Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v [184]*184Barnes & Reinecke, 15 NY2d 443, cert denied sub nom. Estwing Mfg. Co. v Singer, 382 US 905). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 183, 683 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/london-v-versus-technology-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack