Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Catherine VENIZELOS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GREGOFAM EMPRESAS COMERCIALES, S.A., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Oceania Maritime Agency Inc., et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered September 30, 1996, which confirmed the report of the Special Referee and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of disaffirming the report as to defendant Stamatis Gregos and reinstating the complaint as against him, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The Special Referee's finding that plaintiffs had failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating a jurisdictional basis over the defendant entities was based largely upon his determination of credibility and was supported by the record (see, Huxley Barter Corp. v. Considar Inc., 216 A.D.2d 24, 627 N.Y.S.2d 639). However, defendant Gregos' undisputed testimony that he had visited New York to advise defendant Mourginakis with respect to the debt restructuring transaction underlying the complaint, and that over the years he had acted as Mourginakis' principal, had been kept abreast of developments in their business through regular telephone calls to New York, and had knowledge of what Mourginakis was doing and consented to it, though not necessarily indicative of a formal agency relationship, was sufficient to subject him to this State's jurisdiction with respect to the transactions complained of (see, Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467, 527 N.Y.S.2d 195, 522 N.E.2d 40).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 20, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)