Preview:

[*1]


Decided on September 24, 2007
Supreme Court, Richmond County

102586/06
Philip G. Minardo, J.
The motion of defendant Eden Beauty Concepts, Inc., d/b/a Eufora International Inc., s/h/a Eufora (hereinafter "Eufora"), inter alia, for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant is decided as follows.
This matter arises out of an alleged breach of contract between plaintiff and defendant Eufora, a corporation which describes itself as "engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of hair, body & skin care products to the professional salon beauty industry" (see Eufora's Distributorship Agreement, Plaintiff's Exhibit A). Plaintiff claims that after performing under such an agreement for four years, he received a telephone call from California advising him that all of his distribution rights were being cancelled effective March 31, 2006. It is alleged that by the terms of the agreement, any such notice was required to be given in writing, and that the agreement was not due to expire until July of 2007. This action for breach of contract followed, with plaintiff effecting personal service upon defendant's "owner," i.e., "president", by personal delivery at its corporate address in California (see Defendant's Exhibit A).
In support of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Eufora sets forth in the January 26, 2007 affidavit of its corporate president, Elizabeth Bewley (see Defendant's Exhibit A), that the company has virtually no business contact with New York. According to Ms. Brewley, Euphora (1) is incorporated in California; (2) derives substantially all its business revenue through the manufacture, sale and distribution of hair, body and skin care products to the professional salon beauty industry in California; (3) has no employees, officers, offices, bank accounts, real estate or telephone listings in New York; (4) is not engaged in any continuous or systematic course of business in New York; and (5) derives little revenue from the State. Finally, [*2]it is alleged that plaintiff is not and never has been employed by Euphora, and that he is not authorized to operate as a subsidiary of the defendant. If not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, defendant asks that the matter be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 327(a) based on forum non conveniens.
In opposition to the motion, plaintiff asserts that Eufora does, in fact, have employees and offices in New York, and names "Robbie DaBiere", a purported resident of New York, as an employee of Eufora who does business within the State. Additionally, plaintiff claims that Eufora's training seminars in New York demonstrate "some articulable nexus between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon," citing Fischbarg v. Doucet (38 AD3d 270).In reply, defendant maintains that Mr. DaBieri is an independent contractor who does nothing more than "coordinate educational and sales training courses" for Euphora in New York (see June 8, 2007 Reply Affidavit of President, Elizabeth Bewley, para 6). According to defendant, the "mere solicitation" of business in New York is insufficient to confer "long arm" jurisdiction over the foreign defendant.
Here, plaintiff's only alleged basis for jurisdiction over Eufora is CPLR 302(a)(1), which provides: "(a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction. As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non

Download 2007_51815.pdf

New York Law