Opinion
2014-02-26
UNITRADE CORPORATION, appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL DATA SYSTEMS, INC., respondent.
Solomon E. Antar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Roscetti & DeCastro, P.C., Niagara Falls, N.Y. (James C. Roscetti of counsel), for respondent.
Solomon E. Antar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Roscetti & DeCastro, P.C., Niagara Falls, N.Y. (James C. Roscetti of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered and to recover on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 6, 2012, which granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“Personal jurisdiction can be conferred under CPLR 302(a)(1) ‘even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant's activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted’ ” ( Paolucci v. Kamas, 84 A.D.3d 766, 767, 922 N.Y.S.2d 792, quoting Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v. Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 N.Y.3d 65, 71, 818 N.Y.S.2d 164, 850 N.E.2d 1140,cert. denied 549 U.S. 1095, 127 S.Ct. 832, 166 L.Ed.2d 665;see Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 N.Y.3d 375, 380, 849 N.Y.S.2d 501, 880 N.E.2d 22;Grimaldi v. Guinn, 72 A.D.3d 37, 44, 895 N.Y.S.2d 156;Kimco Exch. Place Corp. v. Thomas Benz, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 433, 434, 824 N.Y.S.2d 353). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the number, nature, and quality of the defendant's contacts with New York did not demonstrate purposeful activities by which the defendant availed itself of the benefits and protections of New York law ( see Matter of Stengel v. Black, 28 A.D.3d 401, 402, 813 N.Y.S.2d 428;Aero–Bocker Knitting Mills v. Allied Fabrics Corp., 54 A.D.2d 647, 387 N.Y.S.2d 635;M. Katz & Son Billiard Prods. v. Correale & Sons, 26 A.D.2d 52, 270 N.Y.S.2d 672,affd.20 N.Y.2d 903, 285 N.Y.S.2d 871, 232 N.E.2d 864;see also Muse Collections, Inc. v. Carissima Bijoux, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 631, 631, 927 N.Y.S.2d 389;cf. Parke–Bernet Galleries v. Franklyn, 26 N.Y.2d 13, 308 N.Y.S.2d 337, 256 N.E.2d 506;Grimaldi v. Guinn, 72 A.D.3d 37, 895 N.Y.S.2d 156). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, LOTT and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.