§Why CasetextPricing

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, et al., Respondents,v.Global Strat Inc.,, et al., Defendants, Ezequiel Nasser, et al., Appellants.

Brief

30 Cited authorities

  1. Fischbarg v. Doucet

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9962 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 550 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants' calls and emails to plaintiff in New York were transactions giving rise to the cause of action

  2. Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp.

    71 N.Y.2d 460 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 944 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish jurisdiction under section 302, the plaintiff was not required to "establish a formal agency relationship between [the foreign] defendants and [the alleged agent]"; instead, the plaintiff needed only to "convince the court that [the alleged agent] engaged in purposeful activities in [New York] in relation to his transaction for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of the [foreign] defendants and that they exercised some control over [the alleged agent] in the matter"

  3. Deutsche Bank Sec. v. Montana Bd. of Inv.

    7 N.Y.3d 65 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 418 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "long-arm jurisdiction" arising from the in-state transaction of business can lie "over commercial actors and investors using electronic and telephonic means to project themselves into New York"

  4. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7854 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 260 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a foreign bank's repeated use of a correspondent account in New York on behalf of a client ... show purposeful availment" sufficient to meet the transacting-business prong of New York's long-arm statute

  5. A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v. Lezak

    69 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 487 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In A.G. Ship Maintenance, the Court of Appeals remarked that since the problem of abusive litigation practices was most effectively dealt with by plenary rule rather than by ad hoc judicial decision, sanctions could not be imposed in the absence of court rule or statute.

  6. Longines-Wittnauer v. Barnes Reinecke

    15 N.Y.2d 443 (N.Y. 1965)   Cited 732 times
    Holding that minor activities, taken cumulatively, may meet statutory standard

  7. Walkovszky v. Carlton

    18 N.Y.2d 414 (N.Y. 1966)   Cited 316 times
    Holding that an individual will be liable for the acts of the corporation if the individual "uses control of the corporation to further his own rather than the corporation's business"

  8. Palmenta v. Columbia University

    266 A.D.2d 90 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 85 times

    November 18, 1999 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered April 16, 1999, striking the answer of second third-party defendant Sunset City, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the answer reinstated on condition that Sunset be precluded from calling any witness on its behalf unless the witness is produced for a deposition at least 30 days prior to trial. Carol R. Finnochio for Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant

  9. Acme Bus Corp v. Bd. of Educ

    91 N.Y.2d 51 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 47 times
    Noting local board's discretion in selecting contractors

  10. Christian v. City of New York

    269 A.D.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 41 times

    February 3, 2000 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about September 23, 1998, granting plaintiff judgment on default as to liability against defendant On-Site Construction and Development Corp., and ordering an inquest on damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion denied, the judgment vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings as conditioned herein. Jean M. Hartmann, for plaintiff-respondent