Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. v. Axe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. v. Axe

56 A.D.2d 780, 393 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11053

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 780 (Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. v. Axe) 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

Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. v. Axe, 56 A.D.2d 780, 393 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 12, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Defendant-appellant moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint stated facts which, if proven, would spell out a conspiracy between defendant and others to injure plaintiff in his business. Further, he contests jurisdiction over his person. A lawyer admitted in California, he was served while here of his own volition to conduct a deposition. He has presented nothing to indicate that jurisdiction was obtained over him improperly, or in support of the second string to his bow, that he is entitled to dismissal by reason of forum non conveniens. Certainly, nothing has been raised as an issue requiring a hearing. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Capozzoli, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 12, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Defendant-appellant moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint stated facts which, if proven, would spell out a conspiracy between defendant and others to injure plaintiff in his business. Further, he contests jurisdiction over his person. A lawyer admitted in California, he was served while here of his own volition to conduct a deposition. He has presented nothing to indicate that jurisdiction was obtained over him improperly, or in support of the second string to his bow, that he is entitled to dismissal by reason of forum non conveniens. Certainly, nothing has been raised as an issue requiring a hearing. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Capozzoli, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 780, 393 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-lee-organization-inc-v-axe-nyappdiv-1977.