Shearson v. Yianilos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shearson v. Yianilos

220 A.D.2d 310, 633 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10226

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 310 (Shearson v. Yianilos) 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 v. Yianilos, 220 A.D.2d 310, 633 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about March 27, 1995, which granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss this proceeding to stay arbitration for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that neither the Subscription Agreement, to which petitioners were not even parties, nor the Margin Agreement, which merely gave respondents the right to select one of several arbitral tribunals, avail petitioners to show that respondents consented to the jurisdiction of New York courts. Absent such consent, the minimal contacts be[311]*311tween respondents and this State necessary to sustain jurisdiction here are clearly lacking (see, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson, 444 US 286, 291-294). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, 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 (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about March 27, 1995, which granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss this proceeding to stay arbitration for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that neither the Subscription Agreement, to which petitioners were not even parties, nor the Margin Agreement, which merely gave respondents the right to select one of several arbitral tribunals, avail petitioners to show that respondents consented to the jurisdiction of New York courts. Absent such consent, the minimal contacts be[311]*311tween respondents and this State necessary to sustain jurisdiction here are clearly lacking (see, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson, 444 US 286, 291-294). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 310, 633 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shearson-v-yianilos-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack