Adams v. Bodum Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Bodum Inc.

208 A.D.2d 450, 617 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10465

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 450 (Adams v. Bodum Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 450, 617 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-bodum-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack