KESTERSON v. Calumet Photographic, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents. (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Matthew KESTERSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CAMBO FOTOGRAFISCHE INDUSTRIE BV, Defendant-Appellant, Calumet Photographic, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: June 22, 2006

TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SULLIVAN, CATTERSON, MALONE, JJ.

Cozen O'Connor, New York (Erik M. Kowalewsky of counsel), for appellant. Mitchel I. Herstic, New York, for Matthew Kesterson, respondent. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for Calumet respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 27, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendant Cambo's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims by the Calumet defendants, and for the alternative relief of a change of venue on inconvenient forum grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Notwithstanding its burden in the first instance of showing entitlement to summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds, Cambo failed to demonstrate lack of substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce, or an inability reasonably to anticipate that its allegedly tortious acts would have consequences in this state (see CPLR 302(a)(3)[ii] ). Nor did Cambo demonstrate the requisite hardship to warrant a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 327.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law