TURBEL v. SOCIETE GENERALE

The motion court properly concluded that jurisdiction over defendant Banco Supervielle had not been established, either pursuant to CPLR 301 or 302(a), since no evidence was adduced to justify the conclusion that Banco Supervielle, an Argentine entity, itself or through an agent, regularly conducted or transacted business in this State (see,Laufer v. Ostrow, 55 N.Y.2d 305, 310; Faravelli v. Bankers Trust Co., 85 A.D.2d 335, affd 59 N.Y.2d 615). Although plaintiffs request additional discovery on the jurisdictional issue, the record affords no non-speculative ground for plaintiffs' belief that further discovery will yield evidence supportive of a different conclusion (cf., Amigo Foods Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank-New York, 39 N.Y.2d 391, 396).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.