Amodeo v. Star Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1982
• Parties: John AMODEO, Appellant, v. STAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent, and Du-Ben Steel Buildings, Inc., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 724

452 N.Y.S.2d 724

88 A.D.2d 1081

John AMODEO, Appellant, v. STAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent, and Du-Ben Steel Buildings, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

June 17, 1982.

Torraca, Moriello, Canino & Di Stasi, Highland (John R. Canino, Highland, of counsel) for appellant Amodeo.

Gellert & Cutler, Poughkeepsie (Stephen E. Ehlers, Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for appellant Du-Ben Steel Bldgs., Inc.

Rusk, Rusk, Plunket & Wadlin, Kingston (John J. Wadlin, Kingston, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SWEENEY, J. P., and MAIN, CASEY, MIKOLL and YESAWICH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court at Trial Term, entered August 19, 1981 in Ulster County, which granted the cross motion of defendant Star Manufacturing Company and dismissed the complaint as to that defendant upon the ground that it lacked personal jurisdiction.

Defendant Star Manufacturing Company (Star), an Oklahoma corporation, manufactures prefabricated buildings, one of which defendant Du-Ben Steel Buildings, Inc. (Du-Ben), as a franchise dealer of Star, erected for plaintiff John Amodeo pursuant to a contract dated June 25, 1973. When defects were allegedly detected in the building, plaintiff instituted the present lawsuit against defendants Star and Du-Ben for breach of contract, and Star moved to dismiss the complaint against it upon the grounds that the pleadings failed to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. par. 7) and that the court had not acquired personal jurisdiction over Star (CPLR 3211, subd. par. 8). Special Term denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and transferred Star's second dismissal motion to Trial Term, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 862.5, for a hearing and decision. Thereafter, Trial Term granted this latter motion upon concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Star, and both plaintiff and Du-Ben now appeal.

The sole issue presented for our determination is whether or not Star transacted any business within this State within the meaning and intent of CPLR 302 (subd. par. 1) so as to warrant the courts of this State exercising in personam jurisdiction over Star, and we hold that it did. The pertinent law on this question is that a nondomiciliary is subject to the jurisdiction of the New York courts under the cited statute if it can be established that the nonresident defendant has engaged in some purposeful activity within the State and there is a substantial relationship between the activity and the cause of action sued upon, i.e., if it can be shown that a foreign defendant had some business...