Adams v. Bodum Inc.

208 A.D.2d 450, 617 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10465
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1994·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about June [451]*45127, 1993, in an action seeking to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of an allegedly defective product, which, insofar as appealed from, sustained jurisdiction over defendant-appellant manufacturer, under CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant-appellant manufacturer’s exclusive distributorship agreement with co-defendant distributor, covering as it did the entire United States, provided ample basis for the IAS Court’s finding that appellant should have reasonably expected that persons in New York would be purchasing and using its coffee maker (see, Darienzo v Wise Shoe Stores, 74 AD2d 342). Moreover, it is not disputed that defendant-appellant received substantial revenues from interstate or international commerce. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams v. Bodum Inc., 208 A.D.2d 450, 617 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

208 A.D.2d 450 (Adams v. Bodum Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DarrowvHetronicDeutschland
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Darrow v. Hetronic Deutschland
119 A.D.3d 1142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc.
175 F.3d 236 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Thompson v. Nishimoto Trading Co.
180 Misc. 2d 466 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc.
997 F. Supp. 367 (W.D. New York, 1998)