Venizelos v. Gregofam Empresas Comerciales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Venizelos v. Gregofam Empresas Comerciales

239 A.D.2d 265, 657 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5283

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

DecidedMay 20, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 265 (Venizelos v. Gregofam Empresas Comerciales) 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

Venizelos v. Gregofam Empresas Comerciales, 239 A.D.2d 265, 657 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered September 30, 1996, which confirmed the report of the Special Referee and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of disaffirming the report as to defendant Stamatis Gregos and reinstating the complaint as against him, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s finding that plaintiffs had failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating a jurisdictional basis over the defendant entities was based largely upon his determination of credibility and was supported by the record (see, Huxley Barter Corp. v Considar, Inc., 216 AD2d 24). However, defendant Gregos’ undisputed testimony that he had visited New York to advise defendant Mourginakis with respect to the debt restructuring transaction underlying the complaint, and that over the years he had acted as Mourginakis’ principal, had been kept abreast of developments in their business through regular telephone calls to New York, and had knowledge of what Mourginakis was doing and consented to it, though not necessarily indicative of a formal agency relationship, was sufficient to subject him to this State’s jurisdiction with respect to the transactions complained of (see, Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered September 30, 1996, which confirmed the report of the Special Referee and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of disaffirming the report as to defendant Stamatis Gregos and reinstating the complaint as against him, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s finding that plaintiffs had failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating a jurisdictional basis over the defendant entities was based largely upon his determination of credibility and was supported by the record (see, Huxley Barter Corp. v Considar, Inc., 216 AD2d 24). However, defendant Gregos’ undisputed testimony that he had visited New York to advise defendant Mourginakis with respect to the debt restructuring transaction underlying the complaint, and that over the years he had acted as Mourginakis’ principal, had been kept abreast of developments in their business through regular telephone calls to New York, and had knowledge of what Mourginakis was doing and consented to it, though not necessarily indicative of a formal agency relationship, was sufficient to subject him to this State’s jurisdiction with respect to the transactions complained of (see, Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 265, 657 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venizelos-v-gregofam-empresas-comerciales-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack