Opinion
No. 3089 Index No. 651407/23 Case No. 2023-06720
11-21-2024
Umami Labs LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael Erisman et al., Defendants, Alexander Golubitsky, Defendant-Appellant.
Margulis Gelfand Diruzzo & Lambson, New York (Joseph Diruzzo of counsel), for appellant. Ievgeniia P. Vatrenko, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Margulis Gelfand Diruzzo & Lambson, New York (Joseph Diruzzo of counsel), for appellant.
Ievgeniia P. Vatrenko, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Before: Webber, J.P., Singh, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Michael, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered September 18, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, declined to reach defendant's claim for damages and attorneys' fees under CPLR 3211(g) and Civil Rights Law § 70-a upon a determination that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 3211(a)(8). In the same motion, he moved under CPLR 3211(g) for attorneys' fees and damages under Civil Rights Law § 70-a.
The court correctly declined to reach defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(g). Contrary to defendant's contention, once the court found in his favor that it lacked personal jurisdiction over him, it was not required to perform an analysis under CPLR 3211(g) or to reach his claim under the Civil Rights Law (see e.g. Vuzix Corp. v Pearson, 2019 WL 5865342, 2019 U.S. Dist LEXIS 195269 [SD NY Nov. 6, 2019, 19 Civ 689 (NRB)]; see generally Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 470 [1988]). Nor do the 2020 amendments to the Civil Rights Law require a different result.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.