From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aspen Temple Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Hous. Consol. LLC

Supreme Court, Westchester County
Mar 23, 2016
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 50351 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

Opinion

62393/2015

03-23-2016

Aspen Temple Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff, v. US Housing Consolidated LLC and YOURI FRAKINE, Defendants.

Graber, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff 360 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1502 New York, New York 10017 Christopher Riley, Esq. Attorney for Defendant 12 Water Street, Suite 405 White Plains, New York 10601


Graber, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff 360 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1502 New York, New York 10017 Christopher Riley, Esq. Attorney for Defendant 12 Water Street, Suite 405 White Plains, New York 10601 William J. Giacomo, J.

The following papers numbered 1 to 7 were read on plaintiff's motion for default judgment and defendants' cross motion to dismiss.

PAPERS NUMBERED

Notice of Motion/Affirmation/Exhibits 1-3 Notice of Cross Motion/Affidavit 4-5 Affirmation in further support of Motion to Dismiss/Exhibits 6-7

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 28, 2015 plaintiff, a limited liability company with its principal place of business in New Jersey, commenced this action against defendant, a limited liability company with its principal pace of business in Indiana. In the complaint plaintiff alleges that in June of 2015 it contracted with defendant to do preparation and repairs at apartments in New Jersey owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges it tendered $10,000 for the work to be done but defendant never performed the work. Plaintiff alleges causes of action in conversion, fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.

On August 11, 2015 defendants were served at their principal location in Indiana.

Plaintiff now moves for a default judgment.

Defendants cross move to dismiss the action on the ground that this New York Court lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Defendants state that it is an Indiana limited liability company and plaintiff is a New Jersey limited liability company. Further, the work to be performed by defendants was at plaintiff's New Jersey apartments. Also, the contract was formulated in New Jersey. Defendants argue that the only nexus between this matter and the State of New York is the location of plaintiff's attorney.

In opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff argues that a "Linkedin" search indicates that defendants have a location in Brooklyn. Also, a Lexis search shows defendant Frakine has an address in Brooklyn.

Discussion

New York courts need not entertain causes of action lacking a substantial nexus with New York (see Martin v. Mieth, 35 NY2d 414, 418 [1974]; Manaster v. Northstar Tours, 193 AD2d 651, 651—652 [2nd Dpt 1993]). New York courts are not compelled to retain jurisdiction over any case which does not have a substantial nexus to New York (see Silver v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 NY2d 356, 361; Turay v. Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964 [2nd Dept 2009]; Wentzel v. Allen Machinery, Inc., 277 AD2d 446 [2nd Dept 2000]).

The doctrine of forum non conveniens, which embodies this principle, is codified in CPLR 327(a): "When the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum, the court, on the motion of any party, may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just. The domicile or residence in this state of any party to the action shall not preclude the court from staying or dismissing the action." Notably, defendants' residence, standing alone, is insufficient for New York to retain jurisdiction over this matter (see Dawson v. Seenardine, 232 AD2d 521 [2nd Dept 1996]). Thus, whether or not defendants have a Brooklyn address, that alone is insufficient for New York to retain jurisdiction over this matter where all actions took place either in New Jersey or Indiana.

Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Although defendants did not timely file an answer to the complaint, this Court finds that the causes of action alleged have no nexus to the State of New York and declines to retain jurisdiction of this matter.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is DENIED and defendants' cross motion to dismiss the action is GRANTED. Dated: White Plains, New York March 23, 2016 HON. WILLIAM J. GIACOMO, J.S.C.


Summaries of

Aspen Temple Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Hous. Consol. LLC

Supreme Court, Westchester County
Mar 23, 2016
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 50351 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)
Case details for

Aspen Temple Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Hous. Consol. LLC

Case Details

Full title:Aspen Temple Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff, v. US Housing Consolidated LLC and…

Court:Supreme Court, Westchester County

Date published: Mar 23, 2016

Citations

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 50351 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)