Empire Beef Co. v. Meyners-Robinson Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Empire Beef Co. v. Meyners-Robinson Co.

248 A.D.2d 1012, 669 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 1012 (Empire Beef Co. v. Meyners-Robinson Co.) 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

Empire Beef Co. v. Meyners-Robinson Co., 248 A.D.2d 1012, 669 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied, complaint reinstated, motion granted in part and first and second affirmative defenses dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion of defendant for sum[1013]*1013mary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (see, CPLR 302 [a] [1]). Defendant is a Florida corporation that contracted with plaintiff, a New York corporation, for the purchase of 42,000 pounds of veal “F.O.B. Rochester”. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the agreed price of the veal.

In Katz & Son Billiard Prods. v Correale & Sons (26 AD2d 52, 53, affd 20 NY2d 903), it was held that a New Jersey defendant did not transact business in New York within the meaning of the long-arm statute by accepting delivery of goods shipped to New Jersey “F.O.B. [plaintiff’s] factory in New York City” (see also, Dulman v Potomac Baking Co., 85 AD2d 676, 677). In Katz, however, defendant never entered New York, and delivery was by a common carrier. In this case, the meat was loaded onto defendant’s trucks in Rochester for immediate delivery outside the State.

CPLR 302 (a) (1) “is a ‘single act statute’ and proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction * * * so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467). By sending its trucks to Rochester and taking delivery of the meat there, defendant transacted business in New York within the meaning of the statute (see, Kaddis Mfg. Corp. v Gil-Bar Rubber Prods. Co., 103 AD2d 1010). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Lunn, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied, complaint reinstated, motion granted in part and first and second affirmative defenses dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion of defendant for sum[1013]*1013mary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (see, CPLR 302 [a] [1]). Defendant is a Florida corporation that contracted with plaintiff, a New York corporation, for the purchase of 42,000 pounds of veal “F.O.B. Rochester”. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the agreed price of the veal.

In Katz & Son Billiard Prods. v Correale & Sons (26 AD2d 52, 53, affd 20 NY2d 903), it was held that a New Jersey defendant did not transact business in New York within the meaning of the long-arm statute by accepting delivery of goods shipped to New Jersey “F.O.B. [plaintiff’s] factory in New York City” (see also, Dulman v Potomac Baking Co., 85 AD2d 676, 677). In Katz, however, defendant never entered New York, and delivery was by a common carrier. In this case, the meat was loaded onto defendant’s trucks in Rochester for immediate delivery outside the State.

CPLR 302 (a) (1) “is a ‘single act statute’ and proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction * * * so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467). By sending its trucks to Rochester and taking delivery of the meat there, defendant transacted business in New York within the meaning of the statute (see, Kaddis Mfg. Corp. v Gil-Bar Rubber Prods. Co., 103 AD2d 1010). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Lunn, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 1012, 669 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-beef-co-v-meyners-robinson-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack