Iwankow v. Mobil Corp.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1989
• Citation: 541 N.Y.S.2d 428,150 A.D.2d 272
• Parties: , 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1888 Edward N. IWANKOW, Plaintiff-Respondent, Rosa Marie Iwankow, Plaintiff, v. MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 428

541 N.Y.S.2d 428

150 A.D.2d 272, 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1888

Edward N. IWANKOW, Plaintiff-Respondent, Rosa Marie Iwankow, Plaintiff, v. MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

May 25, 1989.

R.P. Katz, for plaintiff-respondent.

J.R. Kahn, for defendants-appellants.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, ASCH, KASSAL and ROSENBERGER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered May 6, 1988, which granted in part and denied in part defendants-appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant appellants' motion as to the first two causes of action, and dismiss the complaint in its entirety, without costs.

Plaintiff-respondent Edward N. Iwankow, a Canadian citizen and a resident of London, England, was employed by defendant-appellant Mobil Overseas Services, Inc. During his 28 years as a Mobil employee he was assigned to work at various Mobil subsidiaries in the United States and abroad. Respondent was employed in New York State for a period of two and a half years, ending in February 1979. At the time his employment was terminated, on October 31, 1986, respondent had been employed in London for three and a half years. One year later, respondent commenced this action alleging violation of New York's Human Rights Law which bars discrimination in employment on account of age.

Appellants sought dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the first two causes of action and for failure to state a cause of action for injury to respondent's wife arising out of his allegedly unlawful termination. Supreme Court granted the motion as to the third cause of action for Mrs. Iwankow's injury, 139 Misc.2d 728, 528 N.Y.S.2d 313, but denied the motion as to the first two causes of action, relying on Matter of Walston & Co., Inc. v. New York City Commission on Human Rights, 41 A.D.2d 238, 342 N.Y.S.2d 459 (1st Dept.1973). However, as Walston & Co. is distinguishable on the facts, the court's reliance thereon was misplaced. Nor do we think that Executive Law § 298-a extends the State's jurisdiction to discrimination against a non-resident which occurs outside the state, given the legislative history of the 1975 enactment.

In Walston & Co., an Illinois resident who maintained a securities trading account was rejected when she sought to open a commodities futures account because she refused to sign a form which was not required of male applicants for such accounts. Although initially she addressed her request to the company's Gary, Indiana office her application was sent to the...