Saratoga Harness Racing Assn., Inc. v. Moss
| Decision Date | 07 July 1967 |
| Citation | 20 N.Y.2d 733,229 N.E.2d 620,283 N.Y.S.2d 55 |
| Parties | , 229 N.E.2d 620 SARATOGA HARNESS RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Jesse MOSS, et al., Defendants, and David Buckson, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 26 A.D.2d 486, 275 N.Y.S.2d 888.
The plaintiff, a New York corporation engaged in conducting harness horse racing at Saratoga Springs, sought to recover damages suffered as result of an alleged tortious boycott in violation of General Business Law, Consol.Laws, c. 20, § 340 and as the result of alleged wrongful interference with contracts. The plaintiff alleged in its first cause of action that during 1964 and 1965 defendants Buckson and Smith and others entered into an arrangement whereby they purposed to interfere with the free exercise of activity in the conduct of business by harness horse race tracks and harness horse owners, trainers, and drivers throughout the United States and Canada and organized the defendant Harness Horsemen International, Inc., and employed defendant Shehan to further such purpose, and that during June and July of 1965 all defendants acting in concert cajoled, harangued, and threatened owners and trainers of horses not to enter them in plaintiff's races, and that, as result of their conduct, the owners and trainers and others refused to enter their horses in races conducted by plaintiff during the period from July 10, 1965 until July 20, 1965 when plaintiff entered into a contract with territorial horsemen's association, and that defendants Buckson and Smith and another entered into the arrangement maliciously and without any cause therefor and with intent wrongfully to interfere with the proper exercise of activity in the conduct of harness horse races by plaintiff and to deprive plaintiff of its property and income. The plaintiff alleged in its second cause of action that prior to May 20, 1965 certain owners and trainers of horses had applied to plaintiff for permission to stable their horses on plaintiff's property during the 1965 race meeting, and that, implicit in those applications, there were agreements by them to enter their horses in plaintiff's races, and that defendants' conduct in June and July of 1965 resulted in repudiation of the alleged contract.
Certain of the defendants alleged, in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over them, then none of them were present in New York prior to at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connell v. Hayden
...53 A.D.2d 524, 525, 384 N.Y.S.2d 452; Saratoga Harness Racing Assn. v. Moss, 26 A.D.2d 486, 490, 275 N.Y.S.2d 888, affd. 20 N.Y.2d 733, 283 N.Y.S.2d 55, 229 N.E.2d 620). They claim that they obtained jurisdiction over Dr. Jonassen by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to Dr. Hay......
-
Louis Marx & Co. v. Fuji Seiko Co., Ltd.
...576 (1972); Saratoga Harness Racing Ass'n v. Moss, 26 A.D.2d 486, 275 N.Y.S.2d 888 (3d Dep't 1966), aff'd mem., 20 N.Y.2d 733, 283 N.Y.S.2d 55, 229 N.E.2d 620 (1967). 9 17 N.Y.2d 27, 267 N.Y.S.2d 900, 215 N.E.2d 159 10 Id. at 31, 267 N.Y.S.2d at 903, 215 N.E.2d at 161. 11 Id. at 32, 267 N.Y......
-
Lehigh Valley Industries, Inc. v. Birenbaum
...250 F.Supp. 850 (S.D.N.Y.1966); Saratoga Harness Racing Assoc., Inc. v. Moss, 26 A.D.2d 486, 275 N.Y.S.2d 888, aff'd 20 N.Y.2d 733, 283 N.Y.S.2d 55, 229 N.E.2d 620 (1967), and have failed to meet it in this regard. We do not think that the New York courts would find these negotiations by No......
-
Sullivan Realty Organization, Inc. v. Syart Trading Corp.
... ... Granite State Provident Assn., 136 N.Y. 343, 346, 32 N.E. 992, the Court of Appeals ... must sustain its burden by preponderating proof (Saratoga Harness Racing Assn. v. Moss, 26 A.D.2d 486, 490, 275 ... ...