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.
QUANTUM CORPORATE FUNDING, LTD., etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, LP, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered April 10, 2007, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Dismissal of the complaint was appropriately denied in this action where plaintiff is seeking payment allegedly due under the assignment of a factoring agreement. Accepting plaintiff's allegations as true on this pre-answer motion to dismiss (see EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170, 832 N.E.2d 26 [2005] ), upon forwarding to defendant's designated branch manager an estoppel certificate that, inter alia, declared that it was subject to New York law, jurisdiction and venue, plaintiff was instructed to contact a senior reports clerk, who subsequently executed the estoppel certificate on behalf of defendant. Contrary to defendant's argument that this clerk lacked the authority to sign the document and therefore, the forum selection provision contained therein was unenforceable, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that defendant's branch manager did not possess the authority to inform plaintiff that it needed to obtain the estoppel certificate from the senior reports clerk, particularly where plaintiff had previously procured an estoppel certificate from the same clerk without protest (see Federal Ins. Co. v. Diamond Kamvakis & Co., 144 A.D.2d 42, 47, 536 N.Y.S.2d 760 [1989], lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 604, 543 N.Y.S.2d 397, 541 N.E.2d 426 [1989] ). Accordingly, there are factual issues as to whether the clerk had the apparent authority to execute the estoppel certificate on defendant's behalf and whether plaintiff's reliance thereon was reasonable (see 11 Duke Street, Ltd. v. Ryman, 280 A.D.2d 429, 721 N.Y.S.2d 502 [2001]; Arol Dev. Corp. v. Whitman & Ransom, 215 A.D.2d 145, 146, 626 N.Y.S.2d 118 [1995] ), which cannot be resolved at this early stage of the proceedings.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: November 29, 2007
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)