Poll v. Second Seattle Real Estate Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs, investors in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, had “not alleged the kind of intentional and repeated use of correspondent accounts that amounts to a transaction of business” by the defendant banks for Madoff “feeder funds”
• dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction where wiring of U.S. dollars through correspondent account was “passive, rather than ‘integral’ to the alleged” fraud
• describing the facts needed “[t]o establish an agency relationship for jurisdictional purposes”
• “[C]ommunications . . . were incidental consequences of fulfilling a foreign contract and are insufficient to ‘project’ the Foreign Defendants into New York.”
• “New York courts reject a per se application of the internal affairs doctrine.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).