Clearly the court had no in personam jurisdiction of defendant (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 8), since there was no evidence that defendant transacted any business within the State (CPLR 302, subd [a], par 1) or indeed committed any other acts which might form a basis for jurisdiction under CPLR 302. The occasional visits of certain officers of defendant to New York, which, for the most part, were for plaintiff's benefit, were not for the purpose of transacting business in the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
