From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joseph v. Siebtechnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 26, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), plaintiff has the burden of establishing the fact of jurisdiction (Derso v. Volkswagen of Am., 159 A.D.2d 937, 938; Cato Show Print. Co. v. Lee, 84 A.D.2d 947, appeal dismissed 56 N.Y.2d 593). In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff submitted affidavits of two attorneys. Neither of these affidavits included any factual allegations regarding jurisdiction. The thrust of both affidavits was to suggest erroneously that defendant had failed to sustain its burden of proof. Under the circumstances, defendant's motion to dismiss should have been granted (see, Schumacher v. Sea Craft Indus., 101 A.D.2d 707).


Summaries of

Joseph v. Siebtechnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Joseph v. Siebtechnik

Case Details

Full title:MARY C. JOSEPH, Respondent, v. SIEBTECHNIK, G.M.B.H., Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 26, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 312

Citing Cases

People v. Frisco Marketing of NY LLC

. “As the party seeking to assert personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on [that]…

Hart Lyman Constr., LLC v. Bergin

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction…