Taylor v. Service Trucking Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Service Trucking Co.

270 A.D. 770, 59 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3885

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D. 770 (Taylor v. Service Trucking 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

Taylor v. Service Trucking Co., 270 A.D. 770, 59 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate, and for personal injuries suffered by him. Order striking out the second, third and fourth defenses in the answer affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The second and third defenses are clearly insufficient under settled authority. (Leonard v. Columbia’ Steam Navigation Co., 84 N. Y. 48; Wilcoff v. Hirschel, 258 N. Y. 28; O’Brien v. Thellusson, 180 Mise. 189; Jongebloed v. Erie 5. B. Co., 266 App. Div." 960.) The fourth defense is insufficient. The decedent was a resident of Queens County when these transitory causes of action arose. The place where the causes of action arose (Jersey City) is not remote and, therefore, the prosecution of the action in New York does not constitute an undue burden upon interstate commerce; hence the court has jurisdiction. (Int. Milling Co. v. Columbia Co., 292 U. S. 511.) The case of Matter of Baltimore Mail S. S. Go. v. Fawcett (269 N. Y. 379) is not to the contrary and is distinguishable. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur,

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

Action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate, and for personal injuries suffered by him. Order striking out the second, third and fourth defenses in the answer affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The second and third defenses are clearly insufficient under settled authority. (Leonard v. Columbia’ Steam Navigation Co., 84 N. Y. 48; Wilcoff v. Hirschel, 258 N. Y. 28; O’Brien v. Thellusson, 180 Mise. 189; Jongebloed v. Erie 5. B. Co., 266 App. Div." 960.) The fourth defense is insufficient. The decedent was a resident of Queens County when these transitory causes of action arose. The place where the causes of action arose (Jersey City) is not remote and, therefore, the prosecution of the action in New York does not constitute an undue burden upon interstate commerce; hence the court has jurisdiction. (Int. Milling Co. v. Columbia Co., 292 U. S. 511.) The case of Matter of Baltimore Mail S. S. Go. v. Fawcett (269 N. Y. 379) is not to the contrary and is distinguishable. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D. 770, 59 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-service-trucking-co-nyappdiv-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack