Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. Mazander Engineered Equipment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. Mazander Engineered Equipment Co.

217 A.D.2d 960, 631 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8387

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 14, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme [961]*961Court properly granted the motion of defendant, an Arkansas corporation, to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although the choice of law clause contained in the parties’ distributor sales agreement is a relevant factor in determining whether defendant transacted business in New York, "absent more, it is insufficient to warrant a finding of long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1)” (Lisec Glastechnische Industrie GmbH v Lenhardt Maschinenbau GmbH, 173 AD2d 70, 72). The record does not support plaintiffs contention that defendant engaged in sufficient purposeful activity in New York to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant (see, Professional Personnel Mgt. Corp. v Southwest Med. Assocs., 216 AD2d 958; Catauro v Goldome Bank for Sav., 189 AD2d 747, 748; see generally, Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Bender, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme [961]*961Court properly granted the motion of defendant, an Arkansas corporation, to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although the choice of law clause contained in the parties’ distributor sales agreement is a relevant factor in determining whether defendant transacted business in New York, "absent more, it is insufficient to warrant a finding of long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1)” (Lisec Glastechnische Industrie GmbH v Lenhardt Maschinenbau GmbH, 173 AD2d 70, 72). The record does not support plaintiffs contention that defendant engaged in sufficient purposeful activity in New York to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant (see, Professional Personnel Mgt. Corp. v Southwest Med. Assocs., 216 AD2d 958; Catauro v Goldome Bank for Sav., 189 AD2d 747, 748; see generally, Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Bender, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. Mazander Engineered Equipment Co., 217 A.D.2d 960, 631 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

217 A.D.2d 960 (Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. Mazander Engineered Equipment Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related