Mayer v. Quirk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mayer v. Quirk

226 A.D.2d 189, 641 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3743

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

DecidedApril 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 189 (Mayer v. Quirk) 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

Mayer v. Quirk, 226 A.D.2d 189, 641 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where the underlying criminal action was prosecuted, the retention of counsel arranged and most of the attorney-client meetings conducted in Massachusetts, defendant client did not engage in purposeful activity in New York (cf., Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen v Shreve City Apts., 147 AD2d 327, 332-333). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where the underlying criminal action was prosecuted, the retention of counsel arranged and most of the attorney-client meetings conducted in Massachusetts, defendant client did not engage in purposeful activity in New York (cf., Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen v Shreve City Apts., 147 AD2d 327, 332-333). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 189, 641 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-quirk-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack