Martinez v. American Standard
| Decision Date | 20 December 1982 |
| Citation | 91 A.D.2d 652,457 N.Y.S.2d 97 |
| Parties | Susana MARTINEZ, individually etc., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN STANDARD, et al., Defendants. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS COMPANY s/h/a Tecumseh Products, defendant third-party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VITREOUS STATE PRODUCTS, third-party Defendant-Appellant (and another third-party title). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Hogan, Jones & Parisi, P.C., New York City (Alexander V. Sansone, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Mineola (E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and GULOTTA, BROWN and BOYERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by third-party defendant Vitreous State Products from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 14, 1981, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 8) to dismiss the third-party complaint against it, upon the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and third-party complaint against Vitreous State Products dismissed.
Gerardo Martinez sustained personal injuries at the Essex Hotel in New York, resulting in his death, as a consequence of the alleged malfunctioning of an air-conditioning unit which was manufactured by defendant American Standard and in which was installed a compressor manufactured by Tecumseh Products Company (Tecumseh). A suit was subsequently brought by the administratrix of the Martinez estate against, inter alia, Tecumseh. Tecumseh then commenced a third-party action against appellant Vitreous State Products (Vitreous), seeking indemnification and/or contribution in the event of any recovery obtained by the plaintiff against it in the main action. The third-party claim was based on the manufacture and sale by Vitreous to Tecumseh of terminal pins which were installed in Tecumseh's compressors.
The instant appeal is from the order denying Vitreous' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 8) to dismiss the third-party complaint against it for lack of in personam jurisdiction.
The due process standards that guide courts in determining whether a nonresident defendant is amenable to suit under the forum state's long-arm statute have as their linchpin, the fundamental notion that the defendant have "minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice' " (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95).
In sustaining jurisdiction herein under clause (ii) of paragraph 3 of subdivision (a) of CPLR 302, New York's long-arm statute, Special Term found that Vitreous derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce and that it expected or should reasonably have expected that tortious conduct on its part would have consequences in the State of New York. While conceding that it derives substantial revenue from interstate commerce, thus satisfying the first requirement of clause (ii), Vitreous disputes Special Term's finding that it should have foreseen that its actions would have consequences in New York.
In our view the record does not support Special Term's conclusion. It is undisputed that Vitreous has no direct contacts with the State of New York. It is incorporated in Rhode Island and operates its business in that State. It has no offices or employees in New York and no plants for manufacture in our State. It has no agents for service of process here, it does not advertise or solicit business in New York, and it does not ship any of its products into New York. The record reveals only that on Tecumseh's orders, Vitreous shipped terminal pins to the midwest.
In World-Wide Volkswagen, Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, the Supreme Court explicitly declared that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Medicine
...haled into a New York court. Montalbano v. Easco Hand Tools, Inc., 766 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir.1985); Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652, 457 N.Y.S.2d 97, 98-99 (2d Dep't.1982), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 873, 470 N.Y.S.2d 367, 458 N.E.2d 826 (1983). Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants and......
-
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek
...Schaadt v. T.W. Kutter, Inc., 169 A.D.2d 969, 970, 564 N.Y.S.2d 865, 866 (3d Dep't 1991); see also Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652, 457 N.Y.S.2d 97 (2d Dep't 1982), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 873, 470 N.Y.S.2d 367, 458 N.E.2d 826 (1983) (holding that foreseeability is restricted by the p......
-
In re DES cases, CV 91-3748
...York such that the defendant may reasonably anticipate being haled into New York court is required. See Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652, 457 N.Y.S.2d 97, 98-99 (1982), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 873, 470 N.Y.S.2d 367, 458 N.E.2d 826 (1983); see also Schaadt v. T.W. Kutter, Inc., 169 A.D.......
-
Williams v. Beemiller, Inc.
...[his products were] likely to end up in New York" (Siegel & Connors N.Y. Prac § 88 [6th Ed]; see e.g. Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652, 653, 457 N.Y.S.2d 97 [2d Dept. 1982], affd 60 N.Y.2d 873, 470 N.Y.S.2d 367, 458 N.E.2d 826 [1983] [rejecting jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3)(......