next case on the calendar this morning is rosenblatt vs coutts and company thank you coops and company a g under n y c p l r three o two a one now the district court based its decision in part on the conclusion that the quote center of gravity and quote of the business transaction between mr rosenblatt and coots was in switzerland and not in new york now that center of gravity language shows up a great deal in southern district decisions however it doesn't have any forebear in new york state or court of appeals decisions new york state court of appeals to citizens indeed it's a complete mis application of the standard that has been established by the court of appeals what about the constitutional limitations on jurisdiction those are absolutely a political your honor that's a separate inquiry from the center of gravity and that is that's a question of fundamental fairness whether it's foreseeable to be hailed into a new york court and well isn't  question of whether the party that is being brought into court purposely sought to avail itself of the privilege of doing business in new york i completely agree your honor that what did what did the bank do  satisfy that standard so it's important your honor to keep in mind that there are two claims in this case and they both arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts so what we have here is not  our relationship rather what we have is a decades long business relationship between coots and mr rosenblatt in which coots projected itself into new york in many ways first of all it entered into three contracts with mr rosenblatt and they knew that they were that they were transacting with someone in new york because they they put his new york address on the front page of the contract there were new resin let had a  property in switzerland isn't that correct and had a swiss address as well as nick act he did own property and to be made to be fair the mortgage agreement concerned that property in switzerland and  had choice of law and jurisdictional provisions pointing to switzerland in both cases right as a choice of law provision for swiss law however we dispute that there was exclusive jurisdiction in zurich nonetheless that was the jurisdiction it was identified as governing right well with all due respect i would say that there were two jurisdictions identified if you look at the general conditions of the mortgage loan it says that the bank reserves the right to  there is not a provision that says they have a right to sue him in his domicile which is new york they have a right to pursue him in his domicile i take it if he moved to florida during the course of this transaction and made that a permanent move such  changed to florida under this contract could have sued him in florida but at that point not in new york isn't that correct well your honor i mean i would say that his domicile is identified as new york in the contract does it first of all the word dumbest while linked to new york anywhere well the client is a defined term and under client it lists his new york address that's where he happens to live right yes and he no that's where he lives throughout their vision of the contract that you're referring to says they can sue him in his domicile which is a term of course a domicile can shift and change people move namely permanently what we do have here that where this eight twenty plus year relationship during the entirety of which mr rosenblatt lived in new york and he has his addresses new york address is identified in more than one contract in other his domicile whether it's in new york or floors somewhere so worlds is pretty clear it's just talking about coots being able to sue him and his domicile doesn't say and we can sue coots wherever our client's  do you read that into the language that is correct your honor i'm not reading that into that language obviously if the contract provided that mr rosenblatt could say you know expressly provided that mr rosenblatt could sue coots in new york we wouldn't be here today what i'm saying is that coots purposely availed itself of the benefits of the legal system in new york by including that language within the contract the pose the contract would totally silent wouldn't it always be the something that would would not otherwise be true that is true your honor but this is something that coots decided to express lee include within the contract and other words they were stating that the senate would be coalition to new york although that if he did move to florida he could sue them in florida under the same logic yes that is true your honor despite the fact that they would have no no way of expecting that he would move to any other place exactly when there wasn't a reason for them to expect him to move to florida because he was a lifelong new york resident and over the course of twenty years is that about to have deliberate elling of the privileges of doing business in a location where you just follow the client wherever he moves while i'd deliberate on coots is part well it's deliberate in the sense your honor that they were first of all reaching into new york when they were communicating with mr rosenblatt fire email clear that physical presence in the modern world of global communications with the new york is is not necessary i take it i take it that the relationship begins in switzerland right this is a this is a joke that begins guy walks into a bank  right well in fact your honor while this is not something that's in the complaint the relationship did not begin in switzerland the relationship began not in new york it began in england but from mr but mr rosenblatt as a resident of new york was largely in new york throughout that relationship and while those communications between himself occurred if i choose to get a loan from a bank in london or in switzerland i get on a plane i go there i talk to the people there i put up as security property not in new york but in switzerland and make an agreement and receive a somewhat mushy sounding that goes to the merits not to jurisdiction promise that they will help me with my foundation which is going to be based at this property in switzerland what what did they do to just the fact that you're just going on the fact that they know i came there from new york well that's not what transpired your your honor and that's why i say it's important to look at this not as a plain vanilla lender by our relationship rather this was a relationship that was initially initiated coots and those discussions concerning the foundation and it's a new york based foundation between coots and mr rosenblatt the purpose of this was for coots to have access to other potential clients they saw this as a way of burnishing be located in switzerland at their home right well your honor it does say in the incorporating documents that they are looking forward to establishing something and sonnen but perforce the organization was based in new york because that's where the directors and more importantly where mr rosenblatt was located and that's where he was doing his work he was hiring attorneys in new york he was doing the work that was necessary to set up a foundation in new york where was the foundation going to be located  well ultimately it would be located in this house that was being developed in switzerland but it was not at the time of any of the discussions or anything that's relevant to the complaint then those conversations about the foundation and you saying coots has a great currency very good you have two minutes f agreement employees located in switzerland service the loan and simply have notices on the loan including the notice is the plan of attached to the contract to the complainant in the case from their offices in switzerland to the prop to plaintiff at the property in switzerland and fax and determination notice of the mortgage from the from there switch off from this with offices to plaintiff's property this is true it is true though as your adversary said that they continued to conduct a fairly extensive relationship with mr present letter for years and years and years corresponding with him in new york they were right they were the record evidence on that your honor is that there were two prior mortgage agreements both secured by the swiss property so i'm not sure what that has to do with new york  agreements also are relevant to the breach of contract then you have serious says also that that coots approached mr rosenblatt initially as a kind of the to establish the relationship is that also as the allegation that occurred in london which also has nothing to do with new york i also think transfers of mortgage funds or securities purchased with those funds your honor those the precise facts in the record are that dispersed the fund the mortgage loan funds the plaintiff in into plaintiff's coots his account in switzerland plaintiff we directed the transfer of some of those funds to new york accounts i believe at some point a securities or purchase of those accounts and then couldn't hold the the u s securities in a in a swiss accounts a play of directed those  security to be transferred to his accounts at j p morgan i think it's so those facts are we have very little connection to new york a new york other than the fact that funds are transferred in these churches may have been transferred there i think it's a well established legal principle that merely sending funds or assets derived from loan funds into new york is not a sufficient connection to establish personal your section of a coup scoots didn't do anything to avail itself of the taking advantage of the laws of new york in that case it the fact that sent alone related correspond may have sent a lonely correspondence the plaintiff in new york or call them there during the course of the goshi asians of the agreement also is not sufficient especially where there's no allegation that could ever met with plaintiff in new york either before the  coots reserve the self the right to sue plaintiff wherever you might live focusing just on the plaintiff residence would be simply turning the jurisdiction alice on its head which focuses on the defendant's conduct and not the activities of plaintiff if you unless you are as every other questions thank you your honor i first want to address the contention by mr morrison that coots did not conduct any purposeful activities in new york and i'd like to draw the court's attention back to those financial transactions that you were asking mr morrison about in order to clear up the record under mr rosenblatt's allegations it is not mr rosenblatt that directed that the money be transferred into new york rather that this was something that coops did on its initiative for its own reasons and specifically i would like to draw the court's attention to section eleven which are special conditions in the twenty twelve mortgage loan agreement that appears in a twenty five of the mortgage at a certain point as mr rosenblatt states in this declaration and twenty thirteen the bank informed him that it was not allowed or at least had misgivings about maintaining this account which included securities because of its worry about being subject to f c c regulations and so it said we're going to have to transfer these funds to you in new york and that's then what they did and those that transfer is york and was going to be transferred he could he i mean presumably he could i thought the point was they couldn't keep it in switzerland if he directed them to send it to john or california or  wherever he wanted to go would would that have some i mean qute said this has to go to new york but i don't think the question was that they couldn't maintain the account in switzerland there is a footnote i understand that this is not part of the record but there were were accounts that were opened by coots with mr rosenblatt as a beneficiary with in new york's that these securities could be bought and sold this is what they're getting rid of they're saying to mr rosenblatt you know you have to you have to basically take control over the stuff because we're not registered broker dealer in new york and so obviously that that it's not going to azerbaijan because mr rosenblatt lives in new york thank you thank you we will