Pastorella v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pastorella v. City of New York

182 A.D.2d 360, 585 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5270

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

DecidedApril 2, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 360 (Pastorella v. City of New York) 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

Pastorella v. City of New York, 182 A.D.2d 360, 585 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 12, 1991, which dismissed the action as against defendant Racal Acoustics, Ltd., for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that appellants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Racal could have reasonably expected the sale of its helmets to have consequences in New York (Murdock v Arenson Inti. USA., 157 AD2d 110). Accordingly, there is no basis for jurisdiction over Racal under CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii). We also agree with the IAS court that quite apart from the long arm statute, the exercise of jurisdiction over Racal would violate the due process clause of the Federal Constitution (Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v Superior Ct., 480 US 102). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 12, 1991, which dismissed the action as against defendant Racal Acoustics, Ltd., for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that appellants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Racal could have reasonably expected the sale of its helmets to have consequences in New York (Murdock v Arenson Inti. USA., 157 AD2d 110). Accordingly, there is no basis for jurisdiction over Racal under CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii). We also agree with the IAS court that quite apart from the long arm statute, the exercise of jurisdiction over Racal would violate the due process clause of the Federal Constitution (Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v Superior Ct., 480 US 102). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 360, 585 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pastorella-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack