Wang v. LSUC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wang v. LSUC

137 A.D.3d 520, 27 N.Y.S.3d 131

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2016

Docket469 653250/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 520 (Wang v. LSUC) 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

Wang v. LSUC, 137 A.D.3d 520, 27 N.Y.S.3d 131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*521 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered September 10, 2014, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to perpetrate an elaborate fraudulent scheme to deprive plaintiff, formerly a licensed Canadian attorney, of his law license in Canada. The defendants include the regulating authority for attorneys in Ontario Canada, three doctors who examined plaintiff, and the professional organizations to which those doctors belong. As determined by the lower court, plaintiff, who bears the burden of showing jurisdiction upon a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), failed to demonstrate that the defendants transacted significant business in New York, and to the extent that any business was transacted, plaintiff failed to demonstrate any connection to the claims asserted in this case (CPLR 302 [a]; O’Brien v Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199, 200 [1st Dept 2003]; Paterno v Laser Spine Inst., 24 NY3d 370, 376 [2014]).

Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that the defendants were subject to conspiracy jurisdiction because he did not sufficiently allege the elements of a conspiracy, or that any part of the conspiracy occurred in New York (CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v Mora Hotel Corp., 296 AD2d 81, 98 [1st Dept 2002], affd 100 NY2d 215 [2003], cert denied 540 US 948 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

*521 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered September 10, 2014, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to perpetrate an elaborate fraudulent scheme to deprive plaintiff, formerly a licensed Canadian attorney, of his law license in Canada. The defendants include the regulating authority for attorneys in Ontario Canada, three doctors who examined plaintiff, and the professional organizations to which those doctors belong. As determined by the lower court, plaintiff, who bears the burden of showing jurisdiction upon a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), failed to demonstrate that the defendants transacted significant business in New York, and to the extent that any business was transacted, plaintiff failed to demonstrate any connection to the claims asserted in this case (CPLR 302 [a]; O’Brien v Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199, 200 [1st Dept 2003]; Paterno v Laser Spine Inst., 24 NY3d 370, 376 [2014]).

Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that the defendants were subject to conspiracy jurisdiction because he did not sufficiently allege the elements of a conspiracy, or that any part of the conspiracy occurred in New York (CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v Mora Hotel Corp., 296 AD2d 81, 98 [1st Dept 2002], affd 100 NY2d 215 [2003], cert denied 540 US 948 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 520, 27 N.Y.S.3d 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wang-v-lsuc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack