Shearson Lehman Bros. v. Sayler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shearson Lehman Bros. v. Sayler

223 A.D.2d 353, 636 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 353 (Shearson Lehman Bros. v. Sayler) 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

Shearson Lehman Bros. v. Sayler, 223 A.D.2d 353, 636 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered October 21, 1994, which granted the petition for a permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed, with costs.

Where petitioners acknowledge, and there is no dispute, that respondents as well as the individual petitioner, their stockbroker, are residents of Nebraska and that all of the underlying transactions took place in Nebraska, the affirmation in opposition of respondents’ attorney was sufficient to assert the lack of in personam jurisdiction over them, particularly where petitioners’ motion is likewise solely supported by their attorney’s affirmation. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered October 21, 1994, which granted the petition for a permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed, with costs.

Where petitioners acknowledge, and there is no dispute, that respondents as well as the individual petitioner, their stockbroker, are residents of Nebraska and that all of the underlying transactions took place in Nebraska, the affirmation in opposition of respondents’ attorney was sufficient to assert the lack of in personam jurisdiction over them, particularly where petitioners’ motion is likewise solely supported by their attorney’s affirmation. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 353, 636 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shearson-lehman-bros-v-sayler-nyappdiv-1996.