Presidential Realty Corp. v. Michael Square West, Ltd.
Cases that cite this one
44 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Bolton v. Gramlich (District Court, S.D. New York 1982)
- Wilson v. Dantas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Eastboro Foundation Charitable Trust v. Penzer (District Court, S.D. New York 2013)
- Druck Corp. v. Macro Fund (U.S.) Ltd. (2d Cir. 2004)
- Wisehart, Friou & Koch v. Hoover (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
- Berkshire Capital Group, LLC v. Palmet Ventures, LLC (2d Cir. 2008)
- Berkshire Capital Group, LLC v. Palmet Ventures, LLC (2d Cir. 2008)
- Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. William Pryor (2d Cir. 2005)
- Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor (2d Cir. 2005)
- Anderson v. Indiana Black Expo, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2000)
- Unlimited Care, Inc. v. Visiting Nurse Ass'n of Eastern Massachusetts, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1999)
- Eugene Iovine, Inc. v. Rudox Engine & Equipment Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 1992)
- PaineWebber Inc. v. Westgate Group, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1990)
- Berk v. Nemetz (District Court, S.D. New York 1986)
- I. Oliver Engebretson, Inc. v. Aruba Palm Beach Hotel & Casino (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
- Beacon Enterprises, Inc. v. Mary Rose Menzies (2d Cir. 1983)
- Dogan v. Harbert Construction Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
- Beldock v. Braun (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
- Iconoclast Advisors, LLC v. GoBig Solar, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- Twine v. Levy (District Court, E.D. New York 1990)
- Raspberry Holdings LLC v. NextBank International Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- Lash v. TDR Capital LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Safra v. SNBNY Holdings Ltd. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- BDO USA, P.C. v. Rojas (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- State of New York v. Vayu, Inc. (N.Y. 2023)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Although the nature and purpose of a solitary business meeting conducted for a single day in New York may supply the minimum contacts necessary to subject a nonresident participant to the jurisdiction of our courts (see, e.g., Riener Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648; cf. Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13), physical presence alone cannot talismanically transform any and all business dealings into business transactions under CPLR 302 (subd [a], par [1]) (e.g., McKee Elec. Co. v Rauland-Borg Corp., 20 NY2d 377; cf. Glassman v Hyder, 23 NY2d 354).
During the course of dealings between the parties in this action, the material terms of a contract for the sale of a Mobile, Alabama real estate development were negotiated in Atlanta, New Orleans and Mobile. The plaintiff purchaser alleged, however, that prior to closing the deal it had requested further talks at its New York office. This meeting allegedly resulted in conciliatory modifications incorporated into an agreement which the defendants’ representative concededly signed at the end of the meeting. The deal was later closed, not in New York but in Mobile.
Jurisdiction, if any, under New York’s long-arm statute would appear in this instance to turn on the extent of defendants’ activities in New York State at the alleged conference held in White Plains on June 25, 1973 (see, e.g., Riener Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648, 653, supra). No reliance can be placed on any attendant negotiations on that day since no proof is tendered by one having personal knowledge either of the fact or the extent of any negotiations. Therefore on the record before us there is no proof of any contacts with this State *674 other than the fact that the modification letter and the agreement were signed in New York. This is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction (Hi Fashion Wigs v Hammond Adv., 32 NY2d 583, 586; cf. Riener Co. v Schwartz, supra).
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.