Raisa R. Mayes v. David A. Leipziger and Levy, Leipziger and Normington, a Professional Law Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[d]efendants were not to perform their services in New York” and “[t]here was no activity in New York in which defendants sought to participate”
• noting that “Defendants were not to perform their services in New York” and “[t]here was no activity in New York in which defendants sought to participate”
• rejecting personal jurisdiction under section 302(a)(1) “because [a third-party] was the agent of defendants” when the plaintiff also failed to show that the defendants conducted business in New York themselves
• physical presence in New York is unnecessary if the defendant’s acts are “purposeful and designed to permit it to conduct activities within New York”
• “New York courts have consistently refused to sustain § 302(a)(1) jurisdiction solely on the basis of defendant’s communication from another locale with a party in New York”
• “New York law appears to hold that an agent cannot predicate the court’s long-arm jurisdiction over his principal solely on his own activities as agent within the state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).