Lewin v. Bock Laundry Machine Co.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1965 |
| Citation | 266 N.Y.S.2d 391,16 N.Y.2d 1070 |
| Parties | , 213 N.E.2d 686 Solomon LEWIN, an infant, by his Guardian ad Litem, Miriam Lewin, et al., Respondents, v. BOCK LAUNDRY MACHINE CO., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 22 A.D.2d 854, 255 N.Y.S.2d 466.
An action was brought to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses. The defendant moved for an order pursuant to Rule 3211(a)(8), CPLR, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction of the person of the corporate defendant.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Part I, Lewis W. Olliffe, J., 42 Misc.2d 599, 249 N.Y.S.2d 49, held that even though the machine which allegedly caused the injury to infant plaintiff in New York was manufactured by foreign corporation outside of state, the 'single act statute,' section 302, CPLR, gave New York courts personal jurisdiction over corporation, where corporation should reasonably have expected that its product would be sold and used in New York. The motion was denied.
On defendant's appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the order. Defendant's motion to the Appellate Division for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on a certified question of law was granted. The question certified was as follows: 'Was the order of the Appellate Division, dated November 30, 1964, properly made?' The appellant asserted that it had not committed a tortious act in the State of New York and that it had not transacted business in the State of New York and that it did not have the minimum contacts with the State of New York which are an essential prerequisite to the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction.
Terhune, Gibbons & Mulvehill, New York City (Carl Raymond Nelson, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Halpern & Brown, Brooklyn (Steven Rubenstein, Brooklyn, on the brief), for respondents.
Order affirmed, with costs (see Singer v. Walker, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 209 N.E.2d 68). Question certified answered in the affirmative.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Hampton Industries, Inc.
...International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-17, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 159 90 L.Ed. 95, supra; Lewin v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 16 N.Y.2d 1070, 266 N.Y.S.2d 391, 213 N.E.2d 686; Benedict Corp. v. Epstein, 47 Misc.2d 316, 262 N.Y.S.2d 726.) Any implication, in older cases, that physi......
-
Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Intern., Inc.
... ... Barnes & Reinecke, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 209 N.E.2d 68; Lewin v. Bock Laundry Mach, Co., 16 N.Y.2d 1070, 266 N.Y.S.2d 391, 213 N.E.2d ... ...
-
McKee Elec. Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp.
...here, as we have in Singer (Singer v. Walker, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 209 N.E.2d 68), Lewin (Lewin v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 16 N.Y.2d 1070, 266 N.Y.S.2d 391, 213 N.E.2d 686) and Johnson (Johnson v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 16 N.Y.2d 1067, 266 N.Y.S.2d 138, 213 N.E.2d 466) (supra......
-
CHINA U. LINES v. American Marine Underwriters
... ... 310, 316-17, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) ... ; Lewin v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 16 N.Y.2d 1070, 266 N.Y.S.2d 391, 213 N.E.2d ... ...