Samsung America, Inc. v. GS Industries Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samsung America, Inc. v. GS Industries Inc.

250 A.D.2d 368, 672 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5276

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

DecidedMay 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 368 (Samsung America, Inc. v. GS Industries 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

Samsung America, Inc. v. GS Industries Inc., 250 A.D.2d 368, 672 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered August 21, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendants^ respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for discovery with respect to the issue of long-arm jurisdiction, unanimously modified, to the extent of denying the motions except as to the fraud claim, and granting the cross-motion, reinstating the portions of the complaint as indicated, with leave to renew the motions to dismiss the complaint upon the completion of discovery, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court generally erred in concluding as a matter of law that the relevant transactions were to occur outside of New York and that there was no substantial relationship between the transactions that did occur in New York and plaintiffs claims. We find that the present record is inadequate to determine the jurisdictional issues under New York’s long-arm statute (CPLR 302) and we remand for discovery on that issue. We affirm, though, to the extent that the fraud claims, which were merely duplicative of the breach of contract claims, and which were not pleaded with sufficient specificity as to actors, time and place, were dismissed. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin 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 (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered August 21, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendants^ respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for discovery with respect to the issue of long-arm jurisdiction, unanimously modified, to the extent of denying the motions except as to the fraud claim, and granting the cross-motion, reinstating the portions of the complaint as indicated, with leave to renew the motions to dismiss the complaint upon the completion of discovery, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court generally erred in concluding as a matter of law that the relevant transactions were to occur outside of New York and that there was no substantial relationship between the transactions that did occur in New York and plaintiffs claims. We find that the present record is inadequate to determine the jurisdictional issues under New York’s long-arm statute (CPLR 302) and we remand for discovery on that issue. We affirm, though, to the extent that the fraud claims, which were merely duplicative of the breach of contract claims, and which were not pleaded with sufficient specificity as to actors, time and place, were dismissed. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 368, 672 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samsung-america-inc-v-gs-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1998.