Roddy v. Schmidt
| Decision Date | 09 November 1982 |
| Citation | 57 N.Y.2d 979,443 N.E.2d 482,457 N.Y.S.2d 234 |
| Parties | , 443 N.E.2d 482 William C. RODDY et al., Appellants, v. Paul A. SCHMIDT et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 85 A.D.2d 756, 445 N.Y.S.2d 280, with costs.
Plaintiffs-appellants seek to recover certain real and personal property, located in the State of Florida, which they transferred to defendants in payment of compensation for services rendered. Defendants were personally served in Florida, the State of their residence, and the Appellate Division granted their cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (made in response to a motion by plaintiffs to compel an examination before trial).
In support of their assertion that the New York court has jurisdiction over defendants, plaintiffs advance two arguments. First, they contend that defendants were transacting business within the State of New York within the contemplation of CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1). The record does not support this contention. * The compensation paid defendants was for services which they had rendered to plaintiffs in connection with the design and implementation of a tax-saving plan pursuant to which plaintiffs would transfer assets in trust to a tax-exempt corporation organized under the laws of Georgia. After the plan was agreed on, real property located in the State of New York was conveyed to the charitable corporation as the trust res. Plaintiffs made no allegation that any of the negotiations with defendants leading to the establishment of the tax-saving program, to the conveyance of the real property, or to the agreement for compensation took place in the State of New York, and defendants assert that all such negotiations (and later the payment of the compensation) occurred in the State of Florida. None of the defendants was prese in New York when the property was transferred to the charitable corporation. Plaintiffs do allege that defendants contacted New York banks for appraisals of the property, and it is true that one of the defendants came to New York to view the property with a representative of the charitable corporation, but no negotiations then took place. These activities, however, are not sufficient to provide a basis for jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morse Typewriter v. Samanda Office Communications
...507 F.Supp. 254, 262 (S.D.N.Y.1980). 36 See Aaacon Auto Transport, 603 F.Supp. at 1349-50; see also Roddy v. Schmidt, 57 N.Y.2d 979, 982, 457 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235, 443 N.E.2d 482, 483 (1982). 37 See Jonathan Morse Deposition, tr. at 13, 38 Defendant also moved to dismiss the action in favor of......
-
Pappas v. Arfaras
...improper, see Dogan v. Harbert Construction Corp., 507 F.Supp. 254, 260-62 (S.D.N.Y.1980); Roddy v. Schmidt, 57 N.Y.2d 979, 981-82, 457 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235, 443 N.E.2d 482, 483 (1982); Weiss v. Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff, 85 A.D.2d 861, 861, 446 N.Y.S.2d 447, ......
-
Cooperstein v. Pan-Oceanic Marine, Inc.
...the party's activities within the forum to see if purposeful acts have been performed in the State (see, Roddy v. Schmidt, 57 N.Y.2d 979, 457 N.Y.S.2d 234, 443 N.E.2d 482; Reiner & Co. v. Schwartz, 41 N.Y.2d 648, 653, 394 N.Y.S.2d 844, 363 N.E.2d 551). The record establishes that the plaint......
-
Weitz v. Weitz, 2010 NY Slip Op 30274(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2/1/2010)
...act within the state, plaintiff must make a showing that at least part of the misconduct charged took place in New York. Roddy v. Schmidt, 57 N.Y.2d 979, 982 (1982). To commit a tortious act within New York, defendant must be "physically present" in the state either personally or through an......