Kaddis Manufacturing Corp. v. Gil-Bar Rubber Products Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaddis Manufacturing Corp. v. Gil-Bar Rubber Products Co.

103 A.D.2d 1010, 478 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19692

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 A.D.2d 1010 (Kaddis Manufacturing Corp. v. Gil-Bar Rubber Products 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

Kaddis Manufacturing Corp. v. Gil-Bar Rubber Products Co., 103 A.D.2d 1010, 478 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The contract, according to its terms, was executed in New York. Defendant performed purposeful acts in New York by taking delivery of the goods in Rochester through its carrier and thereafter by returning a portion of the goods to Rochester for repair (see CPLR 302, subd [a], par 1; Reiner & Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648, 654; Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v Barnes & Reinecke, 15 NY2d 443, 457; Dulman v Potomac Baking Co., 85 AD2d 676, 677; cf. Katz & Son Billiard Prods. v Correale & Sons, 26 AD2d 52, affd 20 NY2d 903). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The contract, according to its terms, was executed in New York. Defendant performed purposeful acts in New York by taking delivery of the goods in Rochester through its carrier and thereafter by returning a portion of the goods to Rochester for repair (see CPLR 302, subd [a], par 1; Reiner & Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648, 654; Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v Barnes & Reinecke, 15 NY2d 443, 457; Dulman v Potomac Baking Co., 85 AD2d 676, 677; cf. Katz & Son Billiard Prods. v Correale & Sons, 26 AD2d 52, affd 20 NY2d 903). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.2d 1010, 478 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaddis-manufacturing-corp-v-gil-bar-rubber-products-co-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack