Hertz, Newmark and Warner v. Fischman
| Decision Date | 22 March 1967 |
| Citation | 53 Misc.2d 418,279 N.Y.S.2d 97 |
| Court | New York City Court |
| Parties | HERTZ, NEWMARK & WARNER, Plaintiff, v. Jerome FISCHMAN, Defendant. |
Grandefeld & Goodman, New York City (Joseph D. Cosgrove, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Herbert W. Fischman, New York City, for defendant.
The order for a reference dated November 2, 1966 directed 'a hearing on the issues both of the timely service of defendant's answer and the personal jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and for final disposition of the motion'.
The plaintiff has waived the objection that the answer was not timely served. The only other issue is as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant.
At the outset of the hearing an issue was raised as to the timeliness of this motion under CPLR 3211(a)(8) inasmuch as the motion was made after answer. However, such an objection not having been raised either in the order of November 2, 1966 or in the papers on which that referral order was predicated, the plaintiff will be deemed to have waived its objection thereto and such objection raised at this time will not be considered.
Plaintiff, a stock broker, alleges it sold certain shares of stock at the request of the defendant, that defendant failed to turn over the required number of shares to the plaintiff for delivery, that the plaintiff was required to purchase the necessary shares and now seeks to recover the cost thereof from the defendant.
Defendant's answer consists substantially of a general denial, defenses of negligence and lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and a counterclaim for damages for plaintiff's alleged negligence.
Plaintiff, a member of the New York Stock Exchange, is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York. Its main office is in New York City, but it maintains branches in New York State and in Newark, New Jersey. The testimony before me reveals the following: defendant had dealt with the plaintiff at its Newark branch for about three years, and had bought and sold two or three stocks through the plaintiff at that branch. The order to sell the stocks in question was also given to plaintiff's representative at the Newark branch.
At no time had the defendant ever specified where the stocks were to be bought or where they were to be sold. The defendant would telephone the plaintiff's representative at its Newark office to buy or sell a particular stock. The order would be phoned into the plaintiff's main office in New York City. If the stock was listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the New York office would phone the order to its clerk on the floor of the Exchange. The clerk would give the order to their broker, who would consummate the sale. The broker would then inform the clerk of the trade and the clerk would report back to the New York office which in turn would report back to the Newark branch. The plaintiff's representative there would then inform the defendant. A written confirmation of the trade would be mailed from the main office in New York to the defendant and to plaintiff's representative, in New Jersey.
If the stock to be traded was in the over-the-counter market, as was the stock in question, the same procedure was followed except that the main office in New York would go into the market, rather than into the Stock Exchange, to find a buyer or seller. Evidently, such over-the-counter market was also located in New York and not in New Jersey. An over-the-counter department was maintained by the plaintiff only in its main office in New York; and only that office had a direct wire to the floor of the Exchange.
Defendant paid for the stocks he purchased by sending a check to the Newark branch office, and the check was deposited by that office in its account in Newark. When stocks were sold for the defendant, the check to the defendant came from the plaintiff's New York office.
Defendant at no time personally came into the city of New York on any matter relating to the transaction which is the basis of this lawsuit. Nor for that matter did defendant ever personally come into New York on any other matter relating to transactions with the plaintiff.
Unquestionably plaintiff was physically present in New York City on matters necessary to the transaction of its business with the defendant. However, the acts of the plaintiff performed by it in New York City may not be attributed to the defendant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant under CCA 404(a)1, the Civil Court Act counterpart of CPLR 302. (See Commentaries by Prof. David D. Siegel to CA 404 in McKinney's Consolidated Laws, Book 29A--Judiciary, Part 3, and the 1966 Cumulative Annual Pocket Part thereto.)
If the plaintiff were an employee of the defendant 'or an agent acting exclusively for the defendant', plaintiff's acts in and of themselves, performed for the defendant in New York, would suffice to establish jurisdiction of the action against the defendant (Millner Co. v. Noudar, Lda., 24 A.D.2d 326, 266 N.Y.S.2d 289). The plaintiff was unquestionably an agent of the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
I. Oliver Engebretson v. Aruba Palm Beach Hotel, 83 Civ. 1552 (SWK).
...exists, in limited circumstances, for exclusive agents who either work for no other principal, Hertz, Newmark & Warner v. Fischman, 53 Misc.2d 418, 421, 279 N.Y.S.2d 97, 100 (Civ.Ct.N.Y.Co.1967), or engage in a continuing course of dealing with the principal, Engelhardt v. Shields & Co., 50......
-
Klein v. Bower
...number five, so we will treat them as part of that cause. 2 N.Y. Civil Practice Law & Rules § 302(a) (1); see Hertz, Newmark & Warner v. Fischman, 53 Misc.2d 418, 279 N.Y.S.2d 97 (Civ.Ct. of the City of New York 1967); cf. Friedr. Zoellner (N.Y.) Corp. v. Tex Metals Co., 278 F.Supp. 52, 55 ......
-
Friedr. Zoellner (New York) Corp. v. Tex Metals Co.
...See Balogh v. Rayner-Smith, 51 Misc.2d 1089, 274 N.Y.S.2d 920 (Supp.Ct.N.Y.Co.1966). See also Hertz, Newmark & Warner v. Fischman, 53 Misc.2d 418, 279 N.Y.S.2d 97 (Civ.Ct. N.Y.1967). Having decided that the defendant was not transacting business within New York, we now turn to the plaintiff......
-
Chertok v. Ethyl Corporation of Canada
...Co. v. Barnes Reinecke, supra, 15 N.Y.2d at 451, 452, 261 N.Y.S.2d at 14, 209 N.E.2d 68 (1965); Hertz, Newmark & Warner v. Fischman, 53 Misc.2d 418, 279 N.Y.S.2d 97, 101 (1967). Since the court is of the opinion that in personam jurisdiction was not obtained over the defendant the complaint......