Legal Opinion
People v. Zimmerman
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 13, 2007PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CIPARICK, J.
This appeal asks us to determine whether defendant is subject to “particular effect” jurisdiction, or venue, as set forth in CPL article 20, in New York County. We conclude that he is not.
In 2002, the New York Attorney General’s office began an antitrust investigation into suspected unlawful conduct by *423Federated Department Stores and May Department Stores. The Attorney General sought to determine whether Federated and May conspired with Waterford Wedgwood USA and Lenox, Inc.—manufacturers of fine crystal and china—to restrain the sale of such products by Bed,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Steingut v. GoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- People v. MooreNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Murtagh v. LeibowitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- People v. FeaNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- People v. GoldswerNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. RaucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Matter of Gentner v. HallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- People v. RaucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. ZimmermanNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.