Wohl v. Landmark Capital II, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wohl v. Landmark Capital II, LLC

112 A.D.3d 815, 978 N.Y.S.2d 256

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 815 (Wohl v. Landmark Capital II, LLC) 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

Wohl v. Landmark Capital II, LLC, 112 A.D.3d 815, 978 N.Y.S.2d 256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated September 24, 2012, which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The instant case involves an aborted transaction whereby the plaintiffs in New York attempted to sell an interest in a limited liability company owning assets outside New York to the defendant Landmark Capital III, LLC, a Colorado entity, whose principal, Thomas Kornfeld, resided in Colorado. The plaintiffs contend that the New York courts acquired long-arm jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1), which provides, in pertinent part, that personal jurisdiction may be asserted over a nondomiciliary who “transacts any business within the state.”

The defendants’ conduct was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over them in New York (see CPLR 302 [a]; Matter of Stengel v Black, 28 AD3d 401 [2006]; L. F. Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin v McTamney, 89 AD2d 540 [1982], affd for reasons stated 59 NY2d 651 [1983]; cf. Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380 [2007]; Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 NY3d 65, 71 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1095 [2006]). Moreover, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate grounds for discovery on the question of personal jurisdiction (see Doe v McCormack, 100 AD3d 685 [2012]; Daniel B. Katz & Assoc. Corp. v Midland Rushmore, LLC, 90 AD3d 977 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the [816]*816complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated September 24, 2012, which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The instant case involves an aborted transaction whereby the plaintiffs in New York attempted to sell an interest in a limited liability company owning assets outside New York to the defendant Landmark Capital III, LLC, a Colorado entity, whose principal, Thomas Kornfeld, resided in Colorado. The plaintiffs contend that the New York courts acquired long-arm jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1), which provides, in pertinent part, that personal jurisdiction may be asserted over a nondomiciliary who “transacts any business within the state.”

The defendants’ conduct was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over them in New York (see CPLR 302 [a]; Matter of Stengel v Black, 28 AD3d 401 [2006]; L. F. Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin v McTamney, 89 AD2d 540 [1982], affd for reasons stated 59 NY2d 651 [1983]; cf. Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380 [2007]; Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 NY3d 65, 71 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1095 [2006]). Moreover, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate grounds for discovery on the question of personal jurisdiction (see Doe v McCormack, 100 AD3d 685 [2012]; Daniel B. Katz & Assoc. Corp. v Midland Rushmore, LLC, 90 AD3d 977 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the [816]*816complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 815, 978 N.Y.S.2d 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wohl-v-landmark-capital-ii-llc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack