American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., v. Hernreich
| Decision Date | 21 November 1972 |
| Citation | 338 N.Y.S.2d 146,40 A.D.2d 800 |
| Parties | AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George T. HERNREICH, Defendant-Respondent, and Thomas G. Sullivan, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
C. Fried, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
P. A. Biddelman, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before NUNEZ, J.P., and McNALLY, TILZER, EAGER and CAPOZZOLI, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, New York County entered on January 6, 1972, dismissing the complaint as to defendant Hernreich for lack of in personam jurisdiction, reversed on the law and the motion denied, with $60 costs and disbursements to appellant.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover sums paid to defendant Hernreich pursuant to fraudulently induced agreements between plaintiff and Hernreich. Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that the agreements were induced and effectuated as a result of fraudulent and tortious conduct committed by Hernreich, in concert with and through his co-conspirator and agent, the defendant Sullivan.
Central to the alleged causes of action are allegations that Hernreich entered into an unlawful and illegal scheme with Sullivan, then an employee of plaintiff in New York, pursuant to which Hernreich paid Sullivan two $3,000 bribes to effectuate changes in the affiliation agreement between Hernreich and plaintiff so as to increase the compensation received by Hernreich. Although the bribery was not consummated in New York, plaintiff alleges and defendant does not dispute that the alleged illegal activities of Sullivan occurred in New York, the principal office and place of business of the plaintiff. The acts of Sullivan pursuant to the illegal conspiracy between Sullivan and defendant were the acts of the defendant through his agent, Sullivan, within the meaning of CPLR 302(a)(2). Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. v. Franklyn, 26 N.Y.2d 13, 18, 308 N.Y.S.2d 337, 340, 256 N.E.2d 506, 508; John De Nigris Associates, Inc. v. Pacific Air Transport International, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 363, 329 N.Y.S.2d 939.
Further, Hernreich was physically present in New York throughout 1969 seeking the rate increases from the plaintiff, as was his son, general manager of Hernreich's station. Hernreich admitted to having made trips to New York to secure the increases. Plaintiff's payments to the defendant represented more than 50% Of the defendant's receipts as owner of KAIT-TV, the television station covered by the agreements here involved. Defendant's activities in the State satisfy the statutory criterion of the transaction of business within the meaning of CPLR 302(a)(1). Singer v. Walker, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 464, 467, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 24, 26, 209 N.E.2d 68, 80, 81; Collateral Factors Corp. v. Meyers, 39 A.D.2d 27, 330 N.Y.S.2d 833.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. United States
...Louis Marx & Co. v. Fuji Seiko Co., Ltd., 453 F.Supp. 385, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); American Broadcasting Co. v. Hernreich, 40 A.D.2d 800, 338 N.Y.S.2d 146, 147 (1st Dept. 1972) (per curiam) (alternative holding); see McLaughlin, Practice Commentary to C.P.L.R. § 302, at 28-29 (McKinney Supp. 1......
-
Best Cellars Inc. v. Grape Finds at Dupont, Inc.
...649 F.2d 121, 122 (2d Cir.1981), and has been held to include co-conspirators, see, e.g., American Broad. Co. v. Hernreich, 338 N.Y.S.2d 146, 148, 40 A.D.2d 800, 801 (N.Y.A.D. 1972); Cleft of the Rock Found. v. Wilson, 992 F.Supp. 574, 581 (E.D.N.Y.1998); Chrysler Capital Corp. v. Century P......
-
Simon v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...term "agent" for purposes of CPLR 302(a)(2) has been read to include co-conspirators. See, e.g., American Broad. Co. v. Hernreich, 338 N.Y.S.2d 146, 148, 40 A.D.2d 800, 801 (1st Dep't 1972); Cleft of the Rock Found. v. Wilson, 992 F.Supp. 574, 581 (E.D.N.Y.1998); Chrysler Capital Corp. v. C......
-
Bulova Watch Co., Inc. v. K. Hattori & Co., Ltd.
...within New York may give rise to jurisdiction over a co-conspirator in another state, American Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Hernreich, 40 A.D.2d 800, 338 N.Y.S.2d 146 (1st Dep't 1972); Merkel Associates, Inc. v. Bellofram Corp., 437 F.Supp. 612, 617 (W.D. N.Y.1977), the bland allegation of con......