Opinion
2013-12-18
Steven J. WOHL, et al., appellants, v. LANDMARK CAPITAL II, LLC, et al., respondents.
Timothy Kebbe, White Plains, N.Y. (Shawn A. Brenhouse and Clarissa H. Porter of counsel), for appellants. Brodsky & Peck, Harrison, N.Y. (Robert A. Brodsky of counsel), for respondents.
Timothy Kebbe, White Plains, N.Y. (Shawn A. Brenhouse and Clarissa H. Porter of counsel), for appellants. Brodsky & Peck, Harrison, N.Y. (Robert A. Brodsky of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
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 ( seeCPLR 302[a]; Matter of Stengel v. Black, 28 A.D.3d 401, 813 N.Y.S.2d 428; L.F. Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin v. McTamney, 89 A.D.2d 540, 452 N.Y.S.2d 630, affd. for reasons stated59 N.Y.2d 651, 463 N.Y.S.2d 197, 449 N.E.2d 1275; cf. Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 N.Y.3d 375, 380, 849 N.Y.S.2d 501, 880 N.E.2d 22; 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. denied549 U.S. 1095, 127 S.Ct. 832, 166 L.Ed.2d 665). Moreover, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate grounds for discovery on the question of personal jurisdiction ( see Doe v. McCormack, 100 A.D.3d 685, 954 N.Y.S.2d 140; Daniel B. Katz & Assoc. Corp. v. Midland Rushmore, LLC, 90 A.D.3d 977, 937 N.Y.S.2d 236). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.