Opinion
2015-04-14
Sonya Whitten LATIMORE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Kim E. FULLER, et al., Defendants, Elma Kim, Defendant–Respondent.
Barret & Winn, Amityville (B. Joseph Barrett of counsel), for appellant. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York (Dean N. Razavi of counsel), for respondent.
Barret & Winn, Amityville (B. Joseph Barrett of counsel), for appellant. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York (Dean N. Razavi of counsel), for respondent.
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, GISCHE, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 8, 2013, which, inter alia, granted defendant Elma Kim's motion to dismiss the complaint as against her, and denied plaintiff's motion for jurisdictional discovery, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered May 17, 2013, dismissing the complaint as against said defendant (CPLR 5520[c] ), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff neither established that New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over defendant Kim nor made a sufficient start to warrant jurisdictional discovery, since she failed to show that the few contacts Kim had with New York are substantially related to plaintiff's claims ( seeCPLR 302[a][1]; Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467, 527 N.Y.S.2d 195, 522 N.E.2d 40 [1988]; Peterson v. Spartan Indus., 33 N.Y.2d 463, 467, 354 N.Y.S.2d 905, 310 N.E.2d 513 [1974] ).
The complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud since it alleges only that Kim submitted a perjurious affidavit concerning misappropriation of plaintiff's idea for a television series in plaintiff's prior federal action. Allegations of perjury committed in judicial proceedings do not form the basis of plenary civil actions for damages “except where the perjury is merely a means to the accomplishment of a large fraudulent scheme” ( Yalkowsky v. Shedler, 94, A.D.2d 684, 463 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept.1983], appeal dismissed in part, lv. denied in part 60 N.Y.2d 600, 467 N.Y.S.2d 198, 454 N.E.2d 538 [1983], quoting Newin Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 211, 217, 371 N.Y.S.2d 884, 333 N.E.2d 163 [1975] ). The aiding and abetting fraud cause of action, which alleges vaguely that Kim helped other defendants “hide the ill gotten gains,” is not pleaded with the requisite particularity ( seeCPLR 3016[b]; Friedman v. Anderson, 23 A.D.3d 163, 166, 803 N.Y.S.2d 514 [1st Dept.2005] ).