From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United Arab Shipping Co. v. Al-Hashim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1991
176 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

affirming a conditional order of dismissal

Summary of this case from Nasso v. Seagal

Opinion

October 15, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).


The determination of the IAS court, that plaintiff, a Kuwaiti corporation engaged in the ocean shipping business, was "doing business" in this State and was therefore barred by Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) from maintaining the underlying contract actions against the defendants, its former employees, in New York unless and until the plaintiff had complied with the requirements of that statutory provision, was amply supported by the record.

Plaintiff's claim that Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) is inapplicable because the plaintiff's activities in New York were merely incidental to international and interstate commerce is belied by the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants establishing that the plaintiff's activities were not merely casual or occasional, but, rather, regular, systematic and continuous (Construction Specialties v. Hartford Ins. Co., 97 A.D.2d 808). Plaintiff's New York office, which employed approximately 17 full-time employees, actively solicited business, conducted its own sales activities, negotiated and executed contracts, and generated approximately $80 million in revenues and $16 million in profits during a one year period.

Notwithstanding plaintiff's claims to the contrary, plaintiff does not qualify as a "foreign state" entitled to sovereign immunity within the definition of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 ( 28 U.S.C. § 1603 [a]) since the plaintiff is not an organ of a foreign State or a political subdivision thereof, but rather a company engaged in commercial activity for profit whose stock is held by at least six different foreign nations.

Finally, plaintiff's renewal motion was properly denied because plaintiff failed to provide any explanation for its failure to provide the newly offered information and documentation on the prior motion (Brann v. City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 923).

We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

United Arab Shipping Co. v. Al-Hashim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1991
176 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

affirming a conditional order of dismissal

Summary of this case from Nasso v. Seagal

In United Arab Shipping Company v. Al-Hashim, 176 A.D.2d 569, 574 N.Y.S.2d 743 (1991), the court construed a similar statute.

Summary of this case from Woodmont Corp. v. Rockwood Center Partnership
Case details for

United Arab Shipping Co. v. Al-Hashim

Case Details

Full title:UNITED ARAB SHIPPING COMPANY (S.A.G.), Appellant, v. SALMAN AL-HASHIM et…

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

Date published: Oct 15, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 743

Citing Cases

Woodmont Corp. v. Rockwood Center Partnership

See e.g., Storwal Intern. Inc. v. Thom Rock Realty Co., L.P., 784 F. Supp. 1141, 1144 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). In…

UNITED ARAB SHIPPING COMPANY v. EAGLE SYSTEMS, INC.

Mangattu v. M/V Ibn Hayyan, 35 F.3d 205, 207-08 (5th Cir. 1994). Defendant cites to United Arab Shipping…