From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colucci Umans v. 1 Mark, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 8, 1996
224 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

holding that personal jurisdiction exists over a non-domiciliary former legal client when it hired successor counsel in New York, made numerous phone calls to its original counsel New York, and participated in meetings in New York with its original counsel

Summary of this case from Banker v. Esperanza Health Systems, Ltd.

Opinion

February 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).


In an action to recover a legal fee in connection with plaintiff's representation of defendants in a Federal court action in New York, a basis for jurisdiction over the out-of-State corporate defendant exists by reason of its retention of plaintiff law firm to represent it in a New York proceeding, its participation in that proceeding by way of numerous telephone calls and visits to New York by its registered agent and its retention of other attorneys in New York to continue the representation ( see, Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston Rosen v. Shreve City Apts., 147 A.D.2d 327, 332; Murray, Hollander, Sullivan Bass v. HEM Research, 111 A.D.2d 63). Service of the summons and complaint by Federal Express on the corporate defendant's registered agent was proper (CPLR 311). Sanctions against plaintiff are not warranted.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli.


Summaries of

Colucci Umans v. 1 Mark, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 8, 1996
224 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

holding that personal jurisdiction exists over a non-domiciliary former legal client when it hired successor counsel in New York, made numerous phone calls to its original counsel New York, and participated in meetings in New York with its original counsel

Summary of this case from Banker v. Esperanza Health Systems, Ltd.

In Colucci Umans v 1 Mark (224 AD2d 243), for example, this Court found a basis for the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction as a result of the corporate defendant's retention of the plaintiff New York law firm "to represent it in a New York [federal court] proceeding, its participation in that proceeding by way of numerous telephone calls and visits to New York by its registered agent and its retention of other attorneys in New York to continue the representation" (id.).

Summary of this case from Fischbarg v. Doucet
Case details for

Colucci Umans v. 1 Mark, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:COLUCCI UMANS, Respondent, v. 1 MARK, INC., et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Feb 8, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 705

Citing Cases

Kelly v. MD Buyline, Inc.

Nonetheless, jurisdiction is generally upheld if the defendant has had additional contacts with the state…

Fischbarg v. Doucet

Thus, it is not determinative that defendants were not physically present in New York ( see Pilates, Inc. v…