Legal Opinion

Joseph v. Siebtechnik

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

Decided April 26, 1991PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), plaintiff has the burden of establishing the fact of jurisdiction (Derso v Volkswagen of Am., 159 AD2d 937, 938; Cato Show Print. Co. v Lee, 84 AD2d 947, appeal dismissed 56 NY2d 593). In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted affidavits of two attorneys. Neither of these affidavits included any factual allegations regarding jurisdiction. The thrust of both affidavits was to suggest…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cato Show Printing Co. v. LeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  2. Derso v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  3. Schumacher v. Sea Craft Industries, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. Frisco Marketing of NY LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  2. DUNLOP, EVA E. v. SAINT LEO THE GREAT R.C. CHURCHAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  3. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. FRISCO MARKETING OF NY LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API