Opinion
March 16, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.).
The evidence submitted by the Attorney General in opposition to respondent-appellant's motion to dismiss was sufficient to demonstrate that the respondent corporations engaged in purposeful activities in this State in relation to the transactions in issue, for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of the individual Texas respondent, and that he exercised substantial control over the corporations in the matters under review (Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467). Accordingly, it is both reasonable and fair to require respondent, individually, to conduct his defense in this State, and such result does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-317).
Concur — Rubin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.