Allen v. Auto Specialties Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1974
• Citation: 357 N.Y.S.2d 547,45 A.D.2d 331
• Parties: Leo ALLEN et al., Respondents, v. AUTO SPECIALTIES MFG. CO., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 547

357 N.Y.S.2d 547

45 A.D.2d 331

Leo ALLEN et al., Respondents, v. AUTO SPECIALTIES MFG. CO., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 11, 1974.

Crapser & Kirsch, Massena (Vincent F. Kirsch, Massena, of counsel), for appellant.

Leonard & Maginn, Ogdensburg (William F. Maginn, Jr., Ogdensburg, of counsel), for respondents.

Before HERLIHY, P.J., and STALEY, COOKE, SWEENEY and KANE, JJ.

STALEY, Justice.

Defendant, Auto Specialties Mfg. Co., is a Michigan corporation, with its principal office located in that state. It manufactures auto specialty equipment including garage stands or truck lifts. It does not have a license to do business in New York, nor does it own or lease property within New York State.

On December 28, 1970, plaintiff, Leo Allen, an auto mechanic, was employed by Johns Chevrolet, Inc., in Massena, New York which was the owner of a five-ton garage truck stand manufactured by defendant. On that date, while plaintiff was working on a pickup truck that was suspended on said truck stand, he was injured when the truck stand collapsed and the pickup truck fell on him. Thereafter, plaintiffs commenced this negligence action by service of the summons and complaint upon an officer of defendant in the State of Michigan.

Special Term held that, although plaintiffs failed to prove that the court had jurisdiction of the action, the moving affidavits submitted by defendant were sufficient to establish jurisdiction and, on that basis, denied the motion. Defendant's affidavits admit that it has an agent located in Rochester, New York who secures offers to purchase its products for buyers within New York, and that, upon acceptance of such order, defendant ships its products to the buyers. Defendant's sales representative is designated as agent and is compensated on a commission basis. Defendant further admits that its employees solicit prospective vendees within New York and that such vendees constitute national and regional accounts of defendant. Special Term denied the motion on the ground that the affidavits submitted on the motion were sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court pursuant to the provisions of CPLR 302.

Clause (ii) of paragraph 3 of subdivision (a) of CPLR 302 provides that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who 'commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state' if he 'expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.'

The test of whether a defendant expects or should reasonably expect his act to have consequences within the State is an objective rather than a subjective one. (Brown v. Erie-Lackawanna R.R. Co., 54 Misc.2d 225, 282 N.Y.S.2d 335.) Moreover, the statutory requirement of foreseeability relates to forum consequences generally and not to the specific event which produced the injury within the State. The statute does not require the defendant to foresee the specific consequences in New York of its allegedly tortious act. All that must be found is that 'the presence of defendant's product in New York with some potential consequence was reasonably foreseeable rather than fortuitous.' (Tracy...