CHAAR v. ARAB BANK (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret Chan, J.), entered August 4, 2022, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an ex parte order of attachment for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 11, 2022, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to reargue the motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Plaintiffs have previously represented to the court that the sole basis for establishing jurisdiction was through quasi in rem jurisdiction over defendants’ correspondent bank accounts located in New York. The court properly addressed the threshold jurisdictional issue and found that jurisdiction was lacking.

Quasi in rem jurisdiction requires an analysis of whether the “minimum contacts” are present (Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank & Trust, 62 N.Y.2d 65, 72, 476 N.Y.S.2d 64, 464 N.E.2d 432 [1984]).  When assessing “minimum contacts,” the Court must consider “the nature and quality of the defendants’ contacts with the State,” which must be such as to “make it reasonable and just ․ to require the defendant to litigate the claim in the particular forum” (id. at 70, 476 N.Y.S.2d 64, 464 N.E.2d 432, quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 [1945]).  Further, “when the property serving as the jurisdictional basis [here, the corresponding bank accounts located in New York] have no relationship to the cause of action and there are no other ties among the defendant, the forum and the litigation, quasi-in-rem jurisdiction will be lacking” (id. at 71, 476 N.Y.S.2d 64, 464 N.E.2d 432;  see also AlbaniaBEG Ambient Sh.p.k. v. Enel S.p.A., 160 A.D.3d 93, 103, 73 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2018]).  Plaintiffs claim that defendants took part in real estate acquisitions and made trades on the New York Stock Exchange to provide money transfers and letters of credit;  however, none of these activities were connected to plaintiffs’ claims.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ earlier arguments, they apparently also attempt to argue on appeal that the court should have exercised in personam jurisdiction over the defendants. However, “mere maintenance of a correspondent bank account in New York does not suffice to establish personal jurisdiction there” (Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 673 F.3d 50, 65 [2d Cir.2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).