Karrat v. Merhib

New York Supreme Court

Karrat v. Merhib

62 Misc. 2d 72, 307 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1860

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 25, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 Misc. 2d 72 (Karrat v. Merhib) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Karrat v. Merhib, 62 Misc. 2d 72, 307 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1860 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Richard D. Simons, J.

The plaintiff has sued to recover commissions claimed due him under a brokerage contract for the sale of New York realty owned by the nonresident defendants. The defendants have moved to set aside service, claiming that the cause of action accrued subsequent to the disposition of the real estate and they have not transacted business in New York.

There are sufficient minimal contacts to provide this court with jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1), since performance of any contract of sale of New York realty owned by defendants necessarily involves transaction of business within the “ single act statute ” or under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 4). (Tebedo v. Nye, 45 Misc 2d 222; Downes v. Cirelli, 52 Misc 2d 637; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 302.12; 44 Iowa L. Rev., 374.)

The case differs from Glassman v. Hyder (23 N Y 2d 354). Here the real property is located in New York. The defendants, by their ownership and sale of the land, have purposely availed themselves of the privileges and protection of New York’s laws. (Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235.) Indeed, that ownership constitutes a good deal more than a significant single act sufficient for jurisdiction in many cases. The ownership has resulted in a relationship of the nonresidents to the forum State for a continuous period during which they have enjoyed the benefits and protection of New York laws. The motion is denied.

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

Richard D. Simons, J.

The plaintiff has sued to recover commissions claimed due him under a brokerage contract for the sale of New York realty owned by the nonresident defendants. The defendants have moved to set aside service, claiming that the cause of action accrued subsequent to the disposition of the real estate and they have not transacted business in New York.

There are sufficient minimal contacts to provide this court with jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1), since performance of any contract of sale of New York realty owned by defendants necessarily involves transaction of business within the “ single act statute ” or under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 4). (Tebedo v. Nye, 45 Misc 2d 222; Downes v. Cirelli, 52 Misc 2d 637; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 302.12; 44 Iowa L. Rev., 374.)

The case differs from Glassman v. Hyder (23 N Y 2d 354). Here the real property is located in New York. The defendants, by their ownership and sale of the land, have purposely availed themselves of the privileges and protection of New York’s laws. (Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235.) Indeed, that ownership constitutes a good deal more than a significant single act sufficient for jurisdiction in many cases. The ownership has resulted in a relationship of the nonresidents to the forum State for a continuous period during which they have enjoyed the benefits and protection of New York laws. The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Misc. 2d 72, 307 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karrat-v-merhib-nysupct-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack