Presidential Realty Corp. v. Michael Square West, Ltd.
Presidential Realty Corporation Et Al., Appellants, v. Michael Square West, Ltd., Et Al., Respondents
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Although the nature and purpose of a solitary business meeting conducted for a single day in New York may supply the minimum contacts necessary to subject a nonresident participant to the jurisdiction of our courts (see, e.g., Riener Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648 ; cf.
Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13 ), physical presence alone cannot talismanically transform any and all business dealings into business transactions under CPLR 302 (subd [a], par [1]) (e.g., McKee Elec. Co. v Rauland-Borg Corp., 20 NY2d 377 ; cf.
Glassman v Hyder, 23 NY2d 354 ).
During the course of dealings between the parties in this action, the material terms of a contract for the sale of a Mobile, Alabama real estate development were negotiated in Atlanta, New Orleans and Mobile. The plaintiff purchaser alleged, however, that prior to closing the deal it had requested further talks at its New York office. This meeting allegedly resulted in conciliatory modifications incorporated into an agreement which the defendants’ representative concededly signed at the end of the meeting. The deal was later closed, not in New York but in Mobile.
Jurisdiction, if any, under New York’s long-arm statute would appear in this instance to turn on the extent of defendants’ activities in New York State at the alleged conference held in White Plains on June 25, 1973 (see, e.g., Riener Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648, 653 , supra).
No reliance can be placed on any attendant negotiations on that day since no proof is tendered by one having personal knowledge either of the fact or the extent of any negotiations. Therefore on the record before us there is no proof of any contacts with this State *674 other than the fact that the modification letter and the agreement were signed in New York. This is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction (Hi Fashion Wigs v Hammond Adv., 32 NY2d 583, 586 ; cf.
Riener Co. v Schwartz, supra).
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 10 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that jurisdiction could not be sustained even where the underlying contract was signed in New York State)
-
(observing that “physical presence alone cannot talismanically transform any and all business dealings into business transactions under CPLR 302,” and holding that signing of agreement in New York did not suffice to confer jurisdiction)
-
(in action on contract, defendant’s agent signed modification agreement in New York)
-
(fact that modification letter and agreement concerning terms of contract for sale of real estate were signed in New York was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on non-resident defendants)
-
(ultimately refusing to confer jurisdiction over the defendants because the record could not be read to support any transactional activity at the one New York meeting)
-
(Court refused to consider mere speculation that other contacts occurred)
-
(last act marking formal execution of allegedly breached contract insufficient)
-
(finding such first-hand knowledge important to the inquiry)
Cited by 42 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals4
- Federal District Courts17
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts18
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.