PD Cargo, CA v. Paten International SA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

PD Cargo, CA v. Paten International SA

2017 NY Slip Op 2898, 149 A.D.3d 511, 52 N.Y.S.3d 328

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

DecidedApril 13, 2017

Docket653101/14 -3714 3713 3712

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2898 (PD Cargo, CA v. Paten International SA) 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

PD Cargo, CA v. Paten International SA, 2017 NY Slip Op 2898, 149 A.D.3d 511, 52 N.Y.S.3d 328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*512 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 10, 2015, which, among other things, granted defendant Paten International SA’s (Paten) motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for lack of personal jurisdiction and vacated an order of attachment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion to dismiss denied with leave to renew upon completion of discovery on the jurisdictional issue, the complaint reinstated as against Paten, and the order of attachment reinstated. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 4, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, and appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 8, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s second motion to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff’s allegations that Paten used a correspondent account in New York to run a “blue dollar” currency exchange operation, and that defendant vendor Lácteos CDS directed plaintiff’s funds to Paten’s account because Lácteos CDS is a customer of the blue dollar operation, made out a sufficient start in demonstrating personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to jurisdictional discovery (see Licci v Lebanese Can. Bank, SAL, 20 NY3d 327 [2012]; American BankNote Corp. v Daniele, 45 AD3d 338, 340 [1st Dept 2007]; see also CPLR 3211 [d]).

We decline to reach plaintiff’s argument under CPLR 302 (a) (2), because it was raised for the first time on renewal (see Nassau County v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD3d 617, 619 [1st Dept 2012], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 21 NY3d 921 [2013]).

Because we reinstate the action, the order of attachment should also be reinstated.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

*512 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 10, 2015, which, among other things, granted defendant Paten International SA’s (Paten) motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for lack of personal jurisdiction and vacated an order of attachment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion to dismiss denied with leave to renew upon completion of discovery on the jurisdictional issue, the complaint reinstated as against Paten, and the order of attachment reinstated. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 4, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, and appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 8, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s second motion to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff’s allegations that Paten used a correspondent account in New York to run a “blue dollar” currency exchange operation, and that defendant vendor Lácteos CDS directed plaintiff’s funds to Paten’s account because Lácteos CDS is a customer of the blue dollar operation, made out a sufficient start in demonstrating personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to jurisdictional discovery (see Licci v Lebanese Can. Bank, SAL, 20 NY3d 327 [2012]; American BankNote Corp. v Daniele, 45 AD3d 338, 340 [1st Dept 2007]; see also CPLR 3211 [d]).

We decline to reach plaintiff’s argument under CPLR 302 (a) (2), because it was raised for the first time on renewal (see Nassau County v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD3d 617, 619 [1st Dept 2012], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 21 NY3d 921 [2013]).

Because we reinstate the action, the order of attachment should also be reinstated.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2898, 149 A.D.3d 511, 52 N.Y.S.3d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pd-cargo-ca-v-paten-international-sa-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack