Opinion
884
April 25, 2002.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 9, 2001, which denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint, or in the alternative, to conduct jurisdictional discovery, and granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Michael J. Dell, for plaintiffs-appellants.
John J.P. Howley, Elliot I. Miller David A. Field, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin, JJ.
Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the record shows that the motion court did consider their motion for leave to amend and analyzed the jurisdictional issues in light of the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint. The court properly concluded that leave to amend was unwarranted since plaintiffs' factual allegations were insufficient to support their proposed causes of action (see, Non-Linear Trading Co., Inc. v. Braddis Assocs., Inc., 243 A.D.2d 107, 117), plaintiffs having failed to set forth a prima facie basis for jurisdiction over defendants under CPLR 302(a)(2). Plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that Brown Brothers Harriman Co, as the agent of the Venezuelan defendants, committed a tortious act in New York, for the benefit, and with the consent and knowledge of defendants, and in furtherance of a conspiracy that included the foreign defendants (cf., In re Sumitomo Copper Litigation, 120 F. Supp.2d 328). In any event, plaintiffs failed to make out the jurisdictionally requisite substantial connection between the alleged tortious conduct and New York (see, Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 1, 17-18; see also, LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Corp., 95 N.Y.2d 210).
Leave for jurisdictional discovery was properly denied since plaintiffs did not show that facts may exist which would warrant the denial of defendants' motion (see, Peterson v. Spartan Indus., 33 N.Y.2d 463, 466-467).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.