ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. v Montague

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. v Montague 2006 NY Slip Op 30726(U) January 15, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 110349/05 Judge: Emily Jane Goodman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 4/18/2006 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK C .UNTY PART EMILY JANE GOODMAN PRESENT: Justice MOTION INDEX N MOTION DATE -vMOTION SEQ. NO. 06/ MOTION CAL. NO. The followlng papers, numbered 1 to _ _ were read on this motion to/for _ _ _ __ PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits ... Answering Affidavits - Exhibits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Replylng Affidavits - - - - - - - y ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "' z 0 w "' o~ i= a: Cross-Motion: ]}!Vt.o l~s LJ No /vt.iJfl.t.!Y\ /L--el UW...i /~ 1ilfl-J~ de-e__t..ft_p_fl_ ~· /1 cwLfta~ ~ fU.-t_ c~ ~-P~\ "' CJ :::> z ~§ c 0 _. w _. a: 0 a: u. I- WW u. :::c w la: a: >o _. u. _. :::> u. l- o w c. w a: "' ~ w "' <C ~ Dated:_:171'--'--'[Z.__~6_&_ __ __ 0 l- o :E Check one: [J FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: D DO NOT POST ~----iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;=::::::::==-=--==-- [* 2] ---·····----·····--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 17 ------ ---x ABKCO MUSIC & RECORDS, INC., Plaintiff, Index No. 110349/05 -againstNATHANIEL MONTAGUE, ROSE T. CASALAN, and THE MONTAGUE-CASALAN FAMILY TRUST, Ftteo Defendants. APR 18 2006 ----x Emily Jane Goodman, J.: In this of breach Montague, Rose Casalan and pursuant to CPLR contract Montague-Casalan 321l(a) (8), § for an ly Trust move, order smissing complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants also move, pursuant to CPLR 321l(a)(7J, § an order complaint for failure to state a cause of ac Music & Records, to le Inc. cross-moves, the on. Plaintiff ABKCO pursuant to CPLR § 3025, serve an Amended Complaint. stated below, the motion dismissing For for reasons cross-motion are held in abeyance and issue of personal jurisdiction is ref erred to a Special Re to hear and recommend. According to Nevada and Complaint, Montague and Casalan are residents Family Trust was organiz 1 in Nevada. Defendants [* 3] are the owners including of an extensive collection of African artwork, art, books and memorabilia. ABKCO is a New York Corporation which does business in the music and film industries. ABKCO alleges that sometime in 1997, it and the defendants orally agreed that ABKCO would use its New York office to advance funds to the defendants as needed for the purpose of photographing, cataloging, insuring and advertising the art collection. The Complaint states that between August l, 1999 and March 4, 2005, ABKCO made numerous loans to the defendants in the form of payments directed to the defendants or to third-parties at the defendants' direction. The Complaint states that the funds for the loans originated in ABKCO' s New York bank accounts and that defendants' communications with respect to the loans were directed to ABKCO' s New York off ices. The parties allegedly agreed that defendants would repay the loans upon ABKCO's demand for payment. ABKCO commenced this action in July of 2005, asserting claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, based on defendants' alleged failure to repay the loans. Defendants now move to dismiss for, among other things, lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff cross-moves, pursuant to CPLR 3025, for leave to amend the Complaint. The threshold issue here is whether defendants are subject to 2 [* 4] personal jurisdiction in New York. It is undisputed that none of the defendants are New York residents. However, plaintiff asserts that defendants are subject to long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3 02 (a) ( 1) . CPLR 302(a) (1) provides that the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who in person or through an agent "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state". "CPLR 302(a) (1) is a 'single suffice to act confer statute' and, jurisdiction as such, over the one transaction will defendant if such defendant's activities in this State were purposeful and there exists a substantial relationship between the transaction at issue and the claim asserted." Bunkoff General Contractors Inc v State Auto Mut Ins Co, 296 AD2d 699 [3d Dept 2002] It is well-settled that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the issue of jurisdiction. See, Opticare Acquisition Corp v Castillo, 25 AD3d 238 [2d Dept 2005]. "Such burden, however, does not entail making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction; rather, plaintiff need only demonstrate that it made a 'sufficient start' to warrant further discovery." Bunkoff General Contractors Inc v State Auto Mut Ins Co, 296 AD2d 699 [3d Dept 2002]; see, Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi, 19 AD3d 407 [2d Dept 2005]. 3 [* 5] Here, the Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint set forth the terms of the various loans and the years in which they were allegedly made. allegations of Neither pleading sets actions by defendants forth sufficient to support a factual finding of jurisdiction in New York. However, in support of the cross-motion and in opposition to the motion, ABKCO submits affidavits from Jody Klein, Kenneth Salinsky and Iris Keitel, all of whom are Senior Vice-Presidents of the company. These affidavits each assert that the defendants traveled to New York on at least ten occasions to meet with one or more of the affiants at ABKCO's offices regarding the art collection. The affidavits also describe the business that defendants conducted in New York through ABKCO in connection with the Art Collection, including catalogued, insured, defendants' argument, arranging for advertised it and Teplin v Manafort to be appraised. photographed, Contrary (81 AD2d 531 to [1st Dept 1981)) does not hold that affidavits cannot be used to supplement facts in a jurisdiction. complaint to support the existence of personal That case merely concluded that the complaint and the affidavits in opposition to the motion were insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Based on the affidavits submitted, and the allegations in the 4 [* 6] Complaint, ABKCO has made a "sufficient start" and demonstrated that facts may exist which support a finding of jurisdiction over the defendants in New York. See, Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi, 19 AD3d 407 [2d Dept 2005]; Bunkoff General Contractors Inc v State Auto Mut Ins Co, 296 AD2d 699 [3d Dept 2002]. Therefore, a hearing is required to determine whether facts supporting jurisdiction exists. See, Cliff star Corp v California Foods Corp, 254 AD2d 760 [4th Dept 1998]. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the issue of whether facts supporting personal jurisdiction exists over the defendants is ref erred to a Special Referee to hear and report with recommendations, except that, in the event of and upon the filing of a stipulation of the parties, as permitted by CPLR 4317, the Special Referee, or another person designated by the parties to serve as referee, shall determine the aforesaid issue; and it is further ORDERED that the motion and cross-motion are held in abeyance pending receipt of the report and recommendations of the Special Referee and a motion pursuant to CPLR 4403 or receipt of the determination of the Special Referee or the designated referee; and it is further ORDERED that a copy of this order with notice of entry shall be served on the Clerk of the Judicial Support Off ice to arrange a 5 [* 7] date for the reference to a Special Referee. DATED: Aprill~, 2006 ENTER: EMILY JANE GOODMAN 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.