Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2012–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SALgreen2 sentences2025In light of all the circumstances, we conclude that plaintiffs' allegations establish the requisite " 'articulable nexus' . . . or 'substantial relationship' . . . between the business transaction and the claim[s] asserted" ( Licci , 20 NY3d at 339 ). 2016Cause of Action Arising from the Contacts with New York To satisfy the second prong of CPLR 302 (a)(1) that the cause of action arise from the contacts with New York, there must be an "'articulable nexus' [] or 'substantial relationship' [] between the business transaction and the claim asserted" (Licci, 20 NY3d at 339 ). | 3 | 7 |
Matter of James v. iFinex Inc.green2 sentences2023Bank , SAL, 20 NY3d 327, 339 [2012] [internal citations omitted]; see also Matter of James v iFinex Inc. , 185 AD3d 22, 28-29 [1st Dept 2020]). 2023Bank , SAL, 20 NY3d 327, 339 [2012] [internal citations omitted]; see also Matter of James v iFinex Inc. , 185 AD3d 22, 28-29 [1st Dept 2020]). | 2 | 2 |
Rasheed Al Rushaid v. Pictet & Ciegreen2 sentences2019"To satisfy the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1) that the cause of action arise from the contacts with New York, there must be an articulable nexus . . . or substantial relationship . . . between the business transaction and the claim asserted" ( Rushaid v Pictet & Cie , 28 NY3d at 329 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Licci v Lebanese Can. 2017“To satisfy the second prong of CPLR 302 (a) (1) that the cause of action arise from the contacts with New York, there must be an articulable nexus ... or substantial relationship . . . between the business transaction and the claim asserted” (Rushaid v Pictet & Cie, 28 NY3d at 329 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
D&R Global Selections, S.L. v. Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineirogreen2 sentences2025A plaintiff does not need to have been involved in the transaction; rather, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that, considering all the circumstances, there is an articulable nexus or substantial relationship between the business transaction and the claim asserted (D & R global Selections, SL. v Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro, 29 NY3d 292, 298-299 ; English v Avon Products, Inc., 206 AD3d 404 [1st Dept 2022]). 2025NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025 does not need to have been involved in the transaction; rather, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that, considering all the circumstances, there is an articulable nexus or substantial relationship between the business transaction and the claim asserted (D & R global Selections, SL. v Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro, 29 NY3d 292, 298-299 ; English v Avon Products, Inc., 206 AD3d 404 [1st Dept 2022]). | 1 | 3 |
Nick v. Schneidergreen2 sentences2024First, the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state by either transacting business in New York or contracting to supply [goods or] services in New York and second, the claim must arise from that business transaction or from the contract to supply [goods or] services" ( Gottlieb v Merrigan , 170 [*2]AD3d 1316, 1317 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 33 NY3d 908 [2019]; see Nick v Schneider , 150 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2d Dept 2017])."To satisfy the second prong[,] . . . 2019Bank, SAL , 20 NY3d 327, 339 ; Nick v Schneider , 150 AD3d at 1252 ). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McGowan v. Smith
green
2 sentences2016This inquiry is "relatively permissive" (id. at 339, citing McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268 [1981] and Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460 [1988]), and does not require causation, but merely "a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored - 17 - - 18 - No. 180 from the former, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim" (Licci, 20 NY3d at 339 ). 2012C.P.L.R. § 302 (a)(1)?” ( 673 F3d at 74 .) We have interpreted the second prong of the jurisdictional inquiry to require that, in light of all the circumstances, there must be an “articulable nexus” (McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268 [1981]) or “substantial relationship” (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460 [1988]) between the business transaction and the claim asserted. | 2 | 2012–2016 |
Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp.
green
2 sentences2016This inquiry is "relatively permissive" (id. at 339, citing McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268 [1981] and Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460 [1988]), and does not require causation, but merely "a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored - 17 - - 18 - No. 180 from the former, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim" (Licci, 20 NY3d at 339 ). 2012C.P.L.R. § 302 (a)(1)?” ( 673 F3d at 74 .) We have interpreted the second prong of the jurisdictional inquiry to require that, in light of all the circumstances, there must be an “articulable nexus” (McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268 [1981]) or “substantial relationship” (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460 [1988]) between the business transaction and the claim asserted. | 2 | 2012–2016 |
Licci Ex Rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL
green
1 sentence2012C.P.L.R. § 302 (a)(1)?” ( 673 F3d at 74 .) We have interpreted the second prong of the jurisdictional inquiry to require that, in light of all the circumstances, there must be an “articulable nexus” (McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268 [1981]) or “substantial relationship” (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460 [1988]) between the business transaction and the claim asserted. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.