Petty v. Oy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Petty v. Oy

102 A.D.2d 805, 477 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18966

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

DecidedJune 28, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.2d 805 (Petty v. Oy) 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

Petty v. Oy, 102 A.D.2d 805, 477 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered October 26, 1983, which, inter alia, directed defendant Myllykoski Oy to answer plaintiff’s interrogatory No. 8, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to limit said interrogatory to the period from January 1, 1976 through August, 1977 and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs. U Plaintiff’s interrogatories were served in an effort to elicit factual support for plaintiff’s claim that defendant Myllykoski Oy is subject to in personam jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (subd [a], par 1). Plaintiff alleges that the May, 1977 contract which is the subject of this lawsuit was breached in August, 1977 when Myllykoski submitted an independent proposal to purchase a Maine lumber mill in contravention of the parties’ agreement. Since jurisdiction is based on Myllykoski’s transaction of business with plaintiff in New York in this matter, August, 1977 should serve as a terminus insofar as plaintiff’s inquiries into said defendant’s visits to New York are concerned. Any inquiry as to Myllykoski’s visits to New York after that time is irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue, as framed by plaintiff. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered October 26, 1983, which, inter alia, directed defendant Myllykoski Oy to answer plaintiff’s interrogatory No. 8, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to limit said interrogatory to the period from January 1, 1976 through August, 1977 and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs. U Plaintiff’s interrogatories were served in an effort to elicit factual support for plaintiff’s claim that defendant Myllykoski Oy is subject to in personam jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (subd [a], par 1). Plaintiff alleges that the May, 1977 contract which is the subject of this lawsuit was breached in August, 1977 when Myllykoski submitted an independent proposal to purchase a Maine lumber mill in contravention of the parties’ agreement. Since jurisdiction is based on Myllykoski’s transaction of business with plaintiff in New York in this matter, August, 1977 should serve as a terminus insofar as plaintiff’s inquiries into said defendant’s visits to New York are concerned. Any inquiry as to Myllykoski’s visits to New York after that time is irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue, as framed by plaintiff. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 805, 477 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petty-v-oy-nyappdiv-1984.