Roldan v. Dexter Folder Co., 1
| Decision Date | 23 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 1,1,2 |
| Citation | 577 N.Y.S.2d 483,178 A.D.2d 589 |
| Parties | Natalio ROLDAN, Appellant, v. DEXTER FOLDER COMPANY, Defendant, Atlantic Can Company, Respondent. (Action). Natalio ROLDAN, Appellant, v. ROCKWELL GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC., etc., Defendant, Atlantic Can Company, Respondent. (Action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jonah Grossman, New York City, for appellant.
Joseph W. Conklin, New York City (James Lloyd, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, EIBER and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff in both actions appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated February 2, 1990, which, inter alia, granted Atlantic Can Company's motion to dismiss the complaints, insofar as they are asserted against it in both actions, for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In 1977 the defendant Atlantic Can Company (hereinafter Atlantic), located in Passaic, New Jersey, purchased a device known as a five-gallon can slitter for use in its production of tin cans. In 1985, in Passaic, Atlantic sold the machine to a New Jersey container company. Sometime thereafter, the container company transferred the machine to the plaintiff's employer, Bushwick Container Corp., located in Brooklyn. While operating the can slitter in November 1986 the plaintiff sustained injuries to his right arm.
The plaintiff commenced the instant actions in the Supreme Court, Kings County, against Atlantic and other defendants, alleging, among other things, that modifications made on the machine by Atlantic contributed to his injuries. Atlantic moved to dismiss the complaints insofar as they are asserted as against it on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and we affirm.
The courts of this State may exercise personal jurisdiction over, inter alia, a foreign corporation that "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state" (CPLR 302[a][1]; or commits a tortious act outside the State causing injury to person or property within the State if it "regularly does or solicits business [or] derives substantial revenue from goods used * * * in the state" (CPLR 302[a][3][i], as to a cause of action arising from those acts. However, in their affidavits in support of the motion, Atlantic's vice-president and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Constantine v. Stella Maris Ins. Co.
...Although it is well established that “the burden of proving jurisdiction is on the party asserting it” ( Roldan v. Dexter Folder Co., 178 A.D.2d 589, 590, 577 N.Y.S.2d 483), a plaintiff opposing a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of jurisdiction “need only m......
-
Marist Coll. v. Brady
...69 A.D.3d 551, 552, 893 N.Y.S.2d 123; cf. Lang v. Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 55 A.D.3d 793, 794, 866 N.Y.S.2d 313; Roldan v. Dexter Folder Co., 178 A.D.2d 589, 589, 577 N.Y.S.2d 483). However, since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the appellants were subject to the Supre......
-
Kent v. Dometic, LLC
...938 N.Y.S.2d 861 [2012];CRT Inv., Ltd. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 85 AD3d 470, 925 N.Y.S.2d 439 [1st Dept 2011]; Roldan v. Dexter Folder Co., 178 A.D.2d 589, 577 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2d Dept 1991] ), and has failed to meet that burden, and has not asked the court to withhold a decision pending further d......
-
Crt Investments v. Seidman
...Corp., 76 A.D.3d 89, 95, 907 N.Y.S.2d 154 [2010] ). Plaintiffs failed to rebut defendant's affidavit ( see Roldan v. Dexter Folder Co., 178 A.D.2d 589, 590, 577 N.Y.S.2d 483 [1991] ), which established that BDO Tortuga has no presence in New York, that it performed the audit of the Ascot Fu......