3211(a)(8) “no relationship between defendant’s transaction of business and plaintiff’s claims.”

Georgakis v Excel Mar. Carriers Ltd., 2010 NY Slip Op 02982 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

Even assuming that defendant transacted business in New York, CPLR 302(a)(1) does not authorize the courts to exercise jurisdiction over it, because there is no relationship between defendant's transaction of business and plaintiff's claims against defendant (see Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467 [1988]; Holness v Maritime Overseas Corp., 251 AD2d 220, 224 [1998]).

In any event, we find that New York is not a convenient forum for this litigation between a foreign corporation and its former CEO, in which both parties are residents of Greece, which arose from conduct occurring principally in Greece, and in which the bulk of the witnesses and evidence needed by defendant to defend the action are located in Greece (see Gonzalez v Victoria [*2]Lebensversicherung AG, 304 AD2d 427 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 506 [2004]; Holness v Maritime Overseas Corp., 251 AD2d 220, 224 [1998]; Blueye Nav. v Den Norske Bank, 239 AD2d 192 [1997]).

The bold is mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: