Opinion
June 11, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
A review of the facts demonstrates that Tomkins, PLC sufficiently "transacted business" in New York to be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of New York pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) (see, Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467; Bulova Watch Co. v. Hattori Co., 508 F. Supp. 1322, 1345). The same New York contacts which support jurisdiction also provide a "'substantial nexus'" with this State sufficient to defeat defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds (Roman v. Sunshine Ranchettes, 98 A.D.2d 744). Moreover, all things considered, it appears that New York is a more convenient forum than London to litigate this case.
We also note that the IAS Court properly declined to dismiss plaintiff's third cause of action since it states a cause of action sounding in quasi-contract. The complaint was appropriately dismissed as to Tomkins Corporation, Murray Ohio and Richard G.G. Carr since there is no evidence that these defendants received any personal or corporate benefit from the contract to warrant a finding of liability (cf., Bradkin v Leverton, 26 N.Y.2d 192).
We have considered the other issues raised and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.