People v. Allied Marketing Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Allied Marketing Group, Inc.

213 A.D.2d 256, 624 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2814

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 256 (People v. Allied Marketing Group, 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

People v. Allied Marketing Group, Inc., 213 A.D.2d 256, 624 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered January 4, 1994, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition as against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence submitted by the Attorney General in opposition to respondent-appellant’s motion to dismiss was sufficient to demonstrate that the respondent corporations engaged in purposeful activities in this State in relation to the transactions in issue, for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of the individual Texas respondent, and that he exercised substantial control over the corporations in the matters under review (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467). Accordingly, it is both reasonable and fair to require respondent, individually, to conduct his defense in this State, and such result does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 US 310, 316-317). Concur—Rubin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered January 4, 1994, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition as against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence submitted by the Attorney General in opposition to respondent-appellant’s motion to dismiss was sufficient to demonstrate that the respondent corporations engaged in purposeful activities in this State in relation to the transactions in issue, for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of the individual Texas respondent, and that he exercised substantial control over the corporations in the matters under review (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467). Accordingly, it is both reasonable and fair to require respondent, individually, to conduct his defense in this State, and such result does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 US 310, 316-317). Concur—Rubin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 256, 624 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-allied-marketing-group-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack