From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Juron and Minzner v. Dranoff Patrizio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1992
180 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 6, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lubis, J.).


As the record does not conclusively establish when and where the parties' fee-sharing arrangement was made, plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was properly denied (see, Firegreen Ltd. v Claxton, 160 A.D.2d 409, 411). However, in the interest of judicial economy, and as both parties consent, the question of jurisdiction should not await trial but should be decided immediately (see, Rochas Toussier y Asociados v. Rivero, 91 A.D.2d 137, 140).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Juron and Minzner v. Dranoff Patrizio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1992
180 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Juron and Minzner v. Dranoff Patrizio

Case Details

Full title:JURON AND MINZNER, Appellant, v. DRANOFF PATRIZIO, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 95

Citing Cases

Kolvek v. Ferrucci

Under the circumstances, defendant raised a colorable claim of improper service, thus shifting the burden to…

Cliffstar Corp. v. California Foods Corp.

The parties submitted sharply conflicting proof concerning where the oral agreement was made, thereby raising…