Tancredi v. A.C.& S., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tancredi v. A.C.& S., Inc.

6 A.D.3d 352, 775 N.Y.S.2d 520, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5035

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

DecidedApril 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 352 (Tancredi v. A.C.& S., Inc.) 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

Tancredi v. A.C.& S., Inc., 6 A.D.3d 352, 775 N.Y.S.2d 520, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about November 26, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for declaratory relief while denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for declaratory relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A New York State court does not lack jurisdiction over a tortfeasor in bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the automatic stay resulting from bankruptcy, the tortfeasor is not exempt from consideration of damages under CPLR article 16. To the extent that such entity’s culpability is 50% or less, exposure for noneconomic damages can still be calculated in apportioning liability (Kharmah v Metropolitan Chiropractic Ctr., 288 AD2d 94 [2001]; see also Duffy v County of Chautauqua, 225 AD2d 261, 266-267 [1996], Iv dismissed 89 NY2d 980 [1997]). The issue of personal jurisdiction over such an entity, under CPLR 1601 (1), must be resolved on the facts of each case, and not simply on whether or not the tortfeasor is bankrupt.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about November 26, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for declaratory relief while denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for declaratory relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A New York State court does not lack jurisdiction over a tortfeasor in bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the automatic stay resulting from bankruptcy, the tortfeasor is not exempt from consideration of damages under CPLR article 16. To the extent that such entity’s culpability is 50% or less, exposure for noneconomic damages can still be calculated in apportioning liability (Kharmah v Metropolitan Chiropractic Ctr., 288 AD2d 94 [2001]; see also Duffy v County of Chautauqua, 225 AD2d 261, 266-267 [1996], Iv dismissed 89 NY2d 980 [1997]). The issue of personal jurisdiction over such an entity, under CPLR 1601 (1), must be resolved on the facts of each case, and not simply on whether or not the tortfeasor is bankrupt.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 352, 775 N.Y.S.2d 520, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tancredi-v-ac-s-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack