Fashion Tanning Co., Inc. v. Shutzer Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1985 |
| Citation | 489 N.Y.S.2d 791,108 A.D.2d 485 |
| Parties | FASHION TANNING COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. SHUTZER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants, and Alvin Shutzer, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Caffry, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes and Judge, Glen Falls (Malcolm B. O'Hara and Mark A. Lebowitz, Glen Falls, of counsel), for appellant.
Kiley, Feldman, Whalen, Devine and Patane, P. C., Oneida (James J. Devine, Jr., Oneida, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.
This breach of contract action is before us by virtue of personal service of the summons and complaint upon defendant Alvin Shutzer in the State of Massachusetts on April 29, 1983. No service was obtained on defendant Carlo Vieni and that action has been severed. Defendant Shutzer Industries, Inc. does not contest its liability and is not a party to this appeal. Hereinafter, references to defendant alone will refer only to Alvin Shutzer, individually.
Plaintiff is a domestic corporation located in the City of Gloversville, Fulton County, and is engaged in tanning and processing leather and leather products. The basis of the action was that the corporate defendant had failed and neglected to pay plaintiff for leather and leather finishing services ordered by it. The theory of liability against defendant was that he had personally guaranteed the debt of the corporate defendant. Defendant now denies any guarantee on his part.
The issue before the court at this time does not reach the merits of the action. Plaintiff was granted summary judgment against defendant on September 21, 1983 for the stated reason that defendants had raised no triable issues of fact. Defendant did not appear on the motion. However, by notice of motion dated October 3, 1983, defendant moved to vacate the judgment, contending that Special Term had lacked jurisdiction to render it. Supporting papers established without contradiction that defendant was a nondomiciliary of New York State and that he was never physically present in the State conducting business with plaintiff on an individual basis. Consequently, defendant contended that personal service upon him outside the State, ostensibly pursuant to our long-arm statute, was void.
In his papers, defendant referred only to CPLR 302(c). We assume that his argument was based upon CPLR 302(a)(1) as it existed before the 1979 amendment. Since that amendment (L.1979, ch. 252), it has not been necessary to prove the transaction of business within the State in order to qualify under the long-arm statute. The applicable statute at the time of the events underlying this case established personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in this State (see CPLR 302). Performance of the guarantee would have been in this State. It was upon that basis that Special Term denied the motion to vacate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., New York Branch v. Kvaerner a.s.
...547 N.Y.S.2d 556; contra, Rielly Co. v. Lisa B., Inc., 181 A.D.2d 269, 586 N.Y.S.2d 668 [3d Dept.]; Fashion Tanning Co. v. Shutzer Indus., 108 A.D.2d 485, 489 N.Y.S.2d 791 [3d Dept.] ). While this principle would furnish a sufficient basis for dismissal were this action brought to recover d......
-
A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra Bank
...corporation's guaranty to be performed in New York alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction); Fashion Tanning Co. v. Shutzer Indus., 108 A.D.2d 485, 489 N.Y.S.2d 791 (3d Dep't 1985) (Massachusetts defendant's guarantee of payment in New York fell within scope of CPLR 302(a)(1)); see also Cul......
-
Summit Constr. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Act Abatement, LLC
...and substantial justice ( Rielly Co., 181 A.D.2d at 272, 586 N.Y.S.2d 668). Even earlier, in Fashion Tanning Co. v. Shutzer Indus., Inc., 108 A.D.2d 485, 489 N.Y.S.2d 791 [3d Dept. 1985], the court sustained the exercise of jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary guarantor, stating that the amen......
-
First City Federal Sav. Bank v. Dennis, 87 Civ. 2959 (RWS) to 87 Civ. 2968 (RWS)
...jurisdiction, the designation of New York as the place of payment is a significant contact, Fashion Tanning Co. v. Shutzer Indus., Inc., 108 A.D.2d 485, 489 N.Y.S.2d 791 (3d Dep't 1985), as is the fact that the Notes provide that New York law shall govern. Chemco Int'l Leasing, 590 F.Supp. ......