Black v. Oberle Rentals, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1967
• Citation: 55 Misc.2d 398,285 N.Y.S.2d 226
• Parties: Howard L. BLACK, Plaintiff, v. OBERLE RENTALS, INC. and Layton Homes Corp., Layton Travel Trailers Division of Skyline Homes, Inc., Defendants. Lorraine H. BLACK, Plaintiff, v. OBERLE RENTALS, INC. and Layton Homes Corp., Layton Travel Trailers Division of Skyline Homes, Inc., Defendants. LAYTON HOMES CORP., Layton Travel Trailers Division of Skyline Homes, Inc., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. FAYETTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Kelsey-Hayes Company and Beck Welding and Manufacturing, Inc., Third-Party Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 226

285 N.Y.S.2d 226

55 Misc.2d 398

Howard L. BLACK, Plaintiff, v.OBERLE RENTALS, INC. and Layton Homes Corp., Layton Travel

Trailers Division of Skyline Homes, Inc., Defendants.

Lorraine H. BLACK, Plaintiff, v.OBERLE RENTALS, INC. and Layton Homes Corp., Layton Travel

Trailers Division of Skyline Homes, Inc., Defendants.

LAYTON HOMES CORP., Layton Travel Trailers Division of

Skyline Homes, Inc., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiff, v.FAYETTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Kelsey-Hayes Company and Beck

Welding and Manufacturing, Inc., Third-Party Defendants.

Supreme Court, Onondaga County.

Dec. 8, 1967.

A.S. and S.S. Cohen, Syracuse, for plaintiffs, Howard L. Black and Lorraine H. Black.

Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, Syracuse, for defendant, Oberle Rentals, Inc.

Costello, Cooney & Fearon, Syracuse, for defendants and third party plaintiff, Layton Homes Corp., Layton Travel Trailers Division of Skyline Homes, Inc.

Oot, Greene, Setright & Moore, Syracuse, for third party defendant, Beck Welding and Manufacturing, Inc.

DECISION

JAMES H. O'CONNOR, Justice.

The third party defendant, Beck Welding and Manufacturing Inc., moves for an order pursuant to Rule 3211(a)(8) CPLR dismissing the third party complaint on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction over the third party defendant aforesaid.

It is undisputed that the aforementioned third party defendant was served with the third party complaint on July 21, 1967 in the State of Indiana.Said third party defendant is an Indiana corporation and is not authorized to do business in the State of New York although it does have plants in other States besides Indiana.

The main action covers two separate suits for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an accident in Massachusetts in which an automobile and the travel trailer it was hauling jack-knifed and collided with a guard rail.The third party action against the instant third party defendant is based on its manufacture of parts which were re-sold in New York State as part of the trailer unit involved in the accident.Both plaintiffs who were injured in the accident are New York State domiciliaries.

It is the claim of the third partyplaintiff, Layton Homes Corp. and Layton Travel Trailers Division of Skyline Homes, Inc. that Section 302(a)(3)(ii) CPLR provides that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction because a tortious act was committed without the State causing injury to person or property within the State.The injury to the person or property within the state is alleged by the third partyplaintiffs aforesaid to be permanent visible injuries, permanent loss of income among many other such items of damage.Section 302(a) CPLR states as follows:

'(a) * * * As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary * * * who is person or through an agent: * * *

3. commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state, * * * if he * * * (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.'

To resolve the instant motion the Court is called upon to interpret Section 302(a)(3) CPLR.In other words must the tortious act committed without the State of New York physically cause the injury to the person or property within the State or only cause resultant damage from said injury?

There is no clear holding among the decisions in the State of New York as to...