Turbel v. Societe Generale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turbel v. Societe Generale

276 A.D.2d 446, 716 N.Y.S.2d 563, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11017

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 31, 2000·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered July 15, 1999, which granted the motion of defendant Banco Supervielle Societe Generale to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[447] The motion court properly concluded that jurisdiction over defendant Banco Supervielle had not been established, either pursuant to CPLR 301 or 302 (a), since no evidence was adduced to justify the conclusion that Banco Supervielle, an Argentine entity, itself or through an agent, regularly conducted or transacted business in this State (see, Laufer v Ostrow, 55 NY2d 305, 310; Faravelli v Bankers Trust Co., 85 AD2d 335, affd 59 NY2d 615). Although plaintiffs request additional discovery on the jurisdictional issue, the record affords no non-speculative ground for plaintiffs’ belief that further discovery will yield evidence supportive of a different conclusion (cf., Amigo Foods Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N. Y., 39 NY2d 391, 396). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered July 15, 1999, which granted the motion of defendant Banco Supervielle Societe Generale to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[447] The motion court properly concluded that jurisdiction over defendant Banco Supervielle had not been established, either pursuant to CPLR 301 or 302 (a), since no evidence was adduced to justify the conclusion that Banco Supervielle, an Argentine entity, itself or through an agent, regularly conducted or transacted business in this State (see, Laufer v Ostrow, 55 NY2d 305, 310; Faravelli v Bankers Trust Co., 85 AD2d 335, affd 59 NY2d 615). Although plaintiffs request additional discovery on the jurisdictional issue, the record affords no non-speculative ground for plaintiffs’ belief that further discovery will yield evidence supportive of a different conclusion (cf., Amigo Foods Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N. Y., 39 NY2d 391, 396). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Turbel v. Societe Generale, 276 A.D.2d 446, 716 N.Y.S.2d 563, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 446 (Turbel v. Societe Generale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related