first case on the calendar coffee good morning your honors first sikeston my thanks to you for taking me out of order i seem to be in demand today and i need to remind my wife that at least i'm in demand in the courts thank you very much your honour's this case involves basically a singular issue of jurisdiction over the  defendant and suavity i suggest to you that there are sufficient contacts with the state of new york to warrant that this matter be retained by the district court would you just marshal loans quickly for us please yes your honor there are nine transactions that had taken place between the the appellant and the respon not in new york on the contrary the money was in new york the bank account from which the monies came were in new york the appellant is in new york the funds were transferred from new york on five separate occasions on four separate occasions the remittances by the defendant were all to new york and the loans or the joint venture was serviced in new york where there are any services that were performed in new york i mean beyond beyond the moving money around from bank accounts what kind of business transactions were or were  profits came to new york by virtue of the monies having been transferred to new york by the apple lay's taxes were paid to the united states government and to the state of new york by the appellant what you're describing is and correct me if i'm wrong is simply the flow of funds between bank accounts and between new york and canadian bank accounts and judge katzman i respectfully suggest to you that that's more than sufficient to impose personal jurisdiction upon the apple a but i put it to you this way even if that i'm sorry you have any idea how many banking transactions pass through new york by virtue of its status as one if not the most prominent financial center in the world and are you suggesting that every time money passes through new york the company that has some ownership of those funds is somehow subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of new york your honor a single transaction can constitute sufficient basis for jurisdiction based on i believe it's on the burger king case but in in this particular instance we have i look out here and i see burger kings everywhere i don't see the nursery so right now at the grocery the other one mr business out here your honor where else but new york would we have jurisdiction i am in canada why should why should my client be subjected to having to travel to florida what to canada when has the convenience of the plaintiff ever factored into whether there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it's a matter of comparing the jurisdiction from a convenience standpoint for a plaintiff or a defendant certainly the plaintiff has a basis to complain of course the moneys came from new york you're on i'm sorry i don't understand  s these monies that were transferred where your clients money is right yes your honor so he invests in a business that's taking place essentially in cuba right well it could be cuba was in this particular instance the last transaction was cuba the others we didn't know where they were they weren't it was a matter of trust it was an oral partnership that as i understood it and correct me if i'm wrong your client went not entirely so your honor the initial transaction was in miami where the parties met and those straight right miami but none of those none of those transactions not of mr suave his business that your client was investing in took place in new york that's that's correct so so why is this any different than if i buy stock in a company that does business entirely elsewhere in operates entirely elsewhere why is that company subject to personal jurisdiction in new york based on failure to pay what they promise to pay me i just don't understand it for a city federal is the president from my coming here and say saying to you that new is the focal point of the transaction between these parties and where else but new york and possibly miami as you're on a has actually miami and possibly canada and possibly cuba that's where all the business was taking place none of it's taking place in ledge you wouldn't want my client to have to go to cuba to have a salute you would why not that's where he went to arrange this partnership no the partnership was arranged in florida find far and then go to florida go to cuba where you have to go to find the defendant that's what personal jurisdiction is about unless there is a basis for a long arm jurisdiction in new york you have a second question which is all those transactions that you're for and two are not the basis of your  lawsuit are they isn't your lawsuit based on a transfer of money from panama to canada correct your own so that's the transaction that gives rise to the cause of action you're not suing about anything that took place in the joint venture except a somewhat peculiar arrangement where you and the defendant kind of defraud a bank in panama by persuading the bank in panama that there is a judgment that is a totally concocted judgment in order to avoid penalties on a withdrawal from the panamanian bank and the money goes to canada thereafter what does that one have to new york that was a creation of the codefendant bence why they who created an engineered that entire transaction my client had told mr suave a we have this venture to purchase this yacht in miami and in miami in fort lauderdale but we can i have no money other than what's in panama and swab a says my brother and my cousin who used to be with the royal canadian mounted police will get that money for you from panama and that was just totally gratuitous and it was requested by was not requested my client had absolutely no contact with anyone in panama to be able to engineer a transaction of that nature he wanted the money right he wanted the money and how was he going to get the money when he told suave way that he needed the money in order to have them purchase the yacht swab a set i can get that money for you even though this was the fifth of five transactions between the parties all the other transactions emanated from new york the money that went to panama came from new york the money that came from your saying is you have a new york plaintiff who has made money in new york that's the entirety of what all this is about but and then he uses that money to invest in transactions in other parts of the world those monies were new york based monies that's the basis for saying there was jurisdiction here i can i move you on to c p l are three zero two way and  i as i read your brief you acknowledge that the conversion and fraudulent misappropriation took place in canada and that the only injury that there is an injury in new york as required under three o t two a three only if the original event that caused the injury took place in new york the original event that took place i knowledge fully took place out of new york the harm was in new york the losses were sustained in new york that's the basis for three o two and a type of jurisdiction that should be exercised over the defendant ok thanks you will you'll have you have no you know rebuttal oh no we're on thank you thank you very much claim for conversion for the same three million dollars that is the basis of this case could you remind me as to what the current status is yes i've spoken to counsel in florida ok the current status is that case is an relationship between coffee and suavely was a new york relationship and that new york is the only venue for this action that's not true ok i think the law is clear that there has to be safe the defendant on his own initiative has to project himself into the state he has not produced the suave a has not projected him into the state everything in this case was done either in cuba panama canada or miami there were absolutely no contacts contacts at all ok with the state of new york and there's no transaction of business in new york neither mystic dominic nor bence while they have any contacts any york they have no business in new york they have no property in new york not a fact when this case first came on and he brought it on by order to show cause for an attachment we're looking to see what it is that he would actually want to do attach simply under either the long arm statute there is no due process process issue here under the long arm sta they were never not transacting business in new york ok so the lower court's decision here should be a firm thank you unless they have any question let the court has any questions thank you thank you both your arguments that quote reserve decision