Ruderman v. American Brokerage Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruderman v. American Brokerage Co.

56 A.D.2d 886, 392 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 886 (Ruderman v. American Brokerage 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

Ruderman v. American Brokerage Co., 56 A.D.2d 886, 392 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 1, 1976, which (1) denied the branch of their motion which sought dismissal of the complaint as against the individual defendant on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) denied the balance of their motion, which sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Under the facts of this case, defendant Scher was subject to personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff resides in New York and the corporate defendant concededly does business in New York. Moreover, since the employment agreement related to plaintiff’s work as a saleman in New York, the court properly denied the motion of the New Jersey defendants to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, 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 breach of an employment agreement, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 1, 1976, which (1) denied the branch of their motion which sought dismissal of the complaint as against the individual defendant on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) denied the balance of their motion, which sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Under the facts of this case, defendant Scher was subject to personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff resides in New York and the corporate defendant concededly does business in New York. Moreover, since the employment agreement related to plaintiff’s work as a saleman in New York, the court properly denied the motion of the New Jersey defendants to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 886, 392 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruderman-v-american-brokerage-co-nyappdiv-1977.