HANSEN REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SAPPHIRE REALTY GROUP LLC (2019)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2018, which granted third-party defendant Shu Sen Jia's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint as against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

Third-party plaintiff Sapphire Realty Group, LLC sufficiently stated a cause of action against third-party defendant Shu Sen Jia (see Philips Intl. Invs. LLC v. Pektor, 117 A.D.3d 1, 7–8, 982 N.Y.S.2d 98 [1st Dept. 2014]). Here, the amended third-party complaint alleges that Jia directed Triple Star to pay for his vacation expenses, which it did, and that such expenses had no legitimate business purpose. The relationship between the parties was sufficient to support an unjust enrichment claim, in that Jia allegedly attended Triple Star business meetings, exerted control over Triple Star, and communicated directly with individuals employed by Triple Star, and the payments were allegedly made at Jia's behest (see id.; Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v. Rieder, 86 A.D.3d 406, 408–409, 926 N.Y.S.2d 494 [1st Dept. 2011], affd 19 N.Y.3d 511, 950 N.Y.S.2d 333, 973 N.E.2d 743 [2012]; see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 182–183, 919 N.Y.S.2d 465, 944 N.E.2d 1104 [2011]). Sapphire also sufficiently stated a cause of action against Jia for money had and received (see Litvinoff v. Wright, 150 A.D.3d 714, 716, 54 N.Y.S.3d 22 [2d Dept. 2017]).

Jia is subject to this court's jurisdiction pursuant to our long arm statute (CPLR 302[a][1]). Jia's attendance at and participation in multiple business meetings in New York, one of which was held during the alleged unauthorized vacation, concerning the real estate development project, is sufficient to establish that he was transacting business in New York (see Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467, 470, 527 N.Y.S.2d 195, 522 N.E.2d 40 [1988]; Home Box Off. v. Baum, 172 A.D.2d 222, 223, 568 N.Y.S.2d 69 [1st Dept. 1991]). Moreover, there was a sufficient connection between Jia's business transactions in New York and the causes of action alleged in the complaint to confer jurisdiction over him pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) (see generally Pramer S.C.A. v. Abaplus Intl. Corp., 76 A.D.3d 89, 95, 907 N.Y.S.2d 154 [1st Dept. 2010]).