Woodhaven Motor Sales, Inc. v. F & E Granite Memorials, Inc.

46 Misc. 2d 266, 261 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1930
Nassau County District Court·Decided May 10, 1965·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

John S. Lockman, J.

The legislative intent in enacting the so-called long-arm statutes (CPLB 302, 313; CCA, § 404; UDCA, § 404) was to confer jurisdiction whenever business was transacted.

While I was surprised to see that the courts have limited the clear intention of the Legislature, I am bound by that limitation. The leading case was decided in this court by a learned Judge. (Home Crafts v. Gramercy Homes, 41 Misc 2d 591 [1964].) There was a telephone call and, as a result of that single communication, merchandise was sent to another county.

This case is distinguished. Here there was a rental extending over a considerable period of time, at least a year; the rented vehicle forming the subject matter was returned to Nassau County for repairs; there was more than a single communication ; there were correspondence and telephone communications. The intention of the Legislature would be frustrated if jurisdiction were not found. Motion to dismiss denied.

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

Woodhaven Motor Sales, Inc. v. F & E Granite Memorials, Inc., 46 Misc. 2d 266, 261 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1930 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1965).

46 Misc. 2d 266 (Woodhaven Motor Sales, Inc. v. F & E Granite Memorials, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Downes v. Cirelli
52 Misc. 2d 637 (Yonkers City Court, 1967)