N.Y. Civ. Prac. Act § 301(a)(1), provides that personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a non-domiciliary defendant where a cause of action arises from a defendant's transaction of business within the state.
The parties entered an agreement whereby the husband was to provide the wife with numerous items including the townhouse at dispute. The husband claimed that the forum did not have jurisdiction over him. The court disagreed. It noted that he had negotiated the settlement agreement with the wife there, had a joint bank account there and received certain mail there.
Did the forum have jurisdiction over the husband?
The court noted that he had negotiated the settlement agreement with the wife there, had a joint bank account there and received certain mail there. The court held this was sufficient and continuous for jurisdiction. The court did agree with the husband that the wife's complaint was deficient in that it failed to state which defendant which claim was made against. The court noted that although the corporation was a wholly owned subsidiary of a corporation, of which the husband was the sole owner, the wife had not produced any evidence that the proper corporate forms had not been observed with respect to these corporations. The court also dismissed the wife's claim for misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit as she failed to give sufficient facts and these claims mandated a higher standard of pleading. The wife's failure to plead a substantial and unreasonable interference with the land is fatal to her claim for private nuisance.