McKee Electric Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKee Electric Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp.

25 A.D.2d 882, 271 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4130

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

DecidedMay 23, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 882 (McKee Electric Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp.) 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

McKee Electric Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp., 25 A.D.2d 882, 271 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for (1) breach of an alleged agreement between plaintiff and defendant Rauland-Borg Corporation; (2) inducing said breach of agreement; (3) conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of its customers and good will; and (4) conspiracy to create a monopoly, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 12, 1966, which granted said defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to it on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction of its person (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 8). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent Rauland-Borg Corporation. In our opinion, defendant Rauland-Borg Corporation did not have the minimum contacts in New York required for acquisition of jurisdiction over it in personam (Kramer v. Vogl, 17 N Y 2d 27); and plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to sustain the necessary jurisdictional finding that said defendant committed any tortious act within the State (Jennings v. Burlington Inds., 19 A D 2d 877; Magnaflux Corp. v. Foerster, 223 F. Supp. 552).

Beldoek, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for (1) breach of an alleged agreement between plaintiff and defendant Rauland-Borg Corporation; (2) inducing said breach of agreement; (3) conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of its customers and good will; and (4) conspiracy to create a monopoly, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 12, 1966, which granted said defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to it on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction of its person (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 8). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent Rauland-Borg Corporation. In our opinion, defendant Rauland-Borg Corporation did not have the minimum contacts in New York required for acquisition of jurisdiction over it in personam (Kramer v. Vogl, 17 N Y 2d 27); and plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to sustain the necessary jurisdictional finding that said defendant committed any tortious act within the State (Jennings v. Burlington Inds., 19 A D 2d 877; Magnaflux Corp. v. Foerster, 223 F. Supp. 552).

Beldoek, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 882, 271 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckee-electric-co-v-rauland-borg-corp-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack