On July 6, 2023, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Propellus, Inc. v. Royal Sovereign Group, 2023 NY Slip Op. 32361(U), holding that use of a New York co-working facility address and phone Number was sufficient to create jurisdiction in New York, explaining:
CPLR 302(a)(l) permits New York courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non·domiciliary defendant who transacts any business in New York if two elements are met: the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State; and plaintiffs claim arises from defendant’s business transaction in New York.
The court has specific personal jurisdiction over the RSG defendants under CPLR 302(a)(l). While the RSG defendants minimize their contact with New York to essentially no contact at all, the question is not so much the quantity but rather the quality of the transaction.
New York City, particularly Wall Street, is known as the world’s financial center. As Cappaze acknowledged, he believed that to have a phone number and use a Wall Street address was a good idea. To that effect, anyone in the world with an interest in the RSG defendants’ business would call the 212 phone number where a receptionist answered by announcing the Royal Sovereign name, and then immediately forwarding the call to Cappaze. Thus, the caller would reasonably believe that the office was in Manhattan. And, although Cappaze states that he was rarely at the Wall Street office, he did admit to holding a business meeting with a group of potential clients from China at 14 Wall Street rather than in New Jersey, where Cappaze claims he conducts his business. Thus, the Wall Street address and a 212 phone number in New York served a beneficial purpose for the RSG defendants’ business.
Further, there is an articulable nexus between plaintiffs claim and defendants’ activities in New York because plaintiffs claim arises from the RSG Notes, which funded RSG’s business operation through about twenty loans under the RSG Notes made between February 14, 2010 and October 15, 2012. Cappaze travelled to New York to negotiate the RSG Notes in addition to maintaining a continuing relationship with AGF and Johnson that spanned over twenty loans; Cappaze also provided ongoing updates on his business to AGF and Johnson.
In light of the RSG defendants’ purposeful actions and the nexus between plaintiffs claim and the RSG defendants’ activities in New York, a finding of personal jurisdiction over the RSG defendants under CPLR 302(a)(I) is warranted.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).