§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

52 Cited authorities

  1. Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg

    43 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 4,075 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing grant of motion to dismiss

  2. Fischbarg v. Doucet

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9962 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 549 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants' calls and emails to plaintiff in New York were transactions giving rise to the cause of action

  3. Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp.

    71 N.Y.2d 460 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 945 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"

  4. 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"

  5. First Bank v. Motor Car

    257 A.D.2d 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 392 times
    Holding that fraudulent inducement claim may be based on allegations that a defendant made "a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract (though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign the contract) and therefore involves a separate breach of a duty"

  6. McGowan v. Smith

    52 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 599 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant exporter's visits to New York to conduct general marketing research did not "bear a substantial relationship" to products liability action arising from purchase of defendant's product in New York because "[w]hile these visits certainly may be characterized as `purposeful' . . . the occurrence of these visits serves merely to establish [the defendant exporter's] transitory physical presence within the State."

  7. Sud v. Sud

    211 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 320 times
    Finding contract claim "too vague and indefinite, and therefore unenforceable, for plaintiff's failure to allege, in nonconclusory language, as required, the essential terms of the parties' purported contract, including . . . the amount of financial support which defendant. . . [was] required to provide or the length of time during which that support had to be provided."

  8. 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

  9. Hansen Co. v. Everlast World's Box

    296 A.D.2d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 220 times
    Holding that there was no cause of unjust enrichment where the plaintiff acted under contract with the corporate defendant and did not show performance of any service for the individual defendant

  10. Laufer v. Ostrow

    55 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 363 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the corporation must be engaged in "activities of substance in addition to solicitation" in order to establish general personal jurisdiction"