From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edelman v. Taittinger, S.A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 2004
8 A.D.3d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3915N.

Decided June 15, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 13, 2003, which set the earliest date on documents to be exchanged in jurisdictional discovery as 30 days prior to commencement of this action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Meier Franzino Scher, LLP, New York (Davida S. Scher of counsel), for appellants.

Sullivan Cromwell LLP, New York (James V. Masella, III of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow, Catterson, JJ.


Since the relevant inquiry under CPLR 302 is whether defendants were doing business in New York at the time the action was brought ( see Lancaster v. Colonial Motor Frgt. Line, 177 A.D.2d 152), the IAS court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the jurisdictional discovery previously permitted by this Court ( 298 A.D.2d 301) to 30 days prior to the filing of the complaint on November 5, 2000.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Edelman v. Taittinger, S.A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 2004
8 A.D.3d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Edelman v. Taittinger, S.A

Case Details

Full title:ASHER B. EDELMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TAITTINGER, S.A., ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 15, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 484

Citing Cases

Umami Labs. v. Erisman

More importantly, the records reveal that plaintiff did not reside in New York when any alleged torts that…

Best v. Guthrie Med. Grp.

In New York, jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 301 must be demonstrated at the time of commencement. Lancaster v.…