Schnall v. Clearfield Cheese Co.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1965 |
| Citation | 23 A.D.2d 652,257 N.Y.S.2d 491 |
| Parties | Abraham SCHNALL, doing business as Schnall Products Company, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. CLEARFIELD CHEESE CO., Inc., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
L. Shapiro, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
C. R. Bergoffen, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and VALENTE, STEVENS, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.
Order, entered on June 16, 1964, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent. Jurisdiction over the defendant in this action depends upon whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action 'arising from' the transaction 'of any business within the state' (see CPLR 302). Inasmuch as it does not appear from plaintiff's amended complaint or his affidavits that he has any such cause of action, the motion under CPLR 3211(a) (8) to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction should have been granted. The plaintiff does not show that he has a cause of action predicated upon the alleged breach of a contract made or to be performed in the State. (Cf.Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, 21 A.D.2d 472, 251 N.Y.S.2d 740.) The writing, alleged to have been executed by plaintiff and delivered in this State, a copy of which is annexed to the complaint, provides merely that defendant, with place of business in Pennsylvania, shall process and package cheese products for plaintiff, without the fixing of any contract period and without any specification as to prices or quantities. The alleged writing is nothing more than an agreement to contract with the matter of prices and quantities to be left for future consideration. The alleged failure of the defendant to process and package cheese for plaintiff as called for by said writing does not appear to be actionable. (See, generally, 9 N.Y.J.ur., Contracts, §§ 49, 50, 51.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry Sash & Door Co. v. Medi-Complex Limited
...contain the necessary jurisdiction facts (cf. Fraley v. Desilu Prods., 23 A.D.2d 79, 258 N.Y.S.2d 294). In Schnall v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Inc., 23 A.D.2d 652, 257 N.Y.S.2d 491 the court stated 'inasmuch as it does not appear from plaintiff's amended complaint or his Affidavits that he ha......
-
Coffman v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.
...1965); Lebensfeld v. Tuch, 43 Misc.2d 919, 252 N.Y.S.2d 594 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 1964); but see, Schnall v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Inc., 23 A.D.2d 652, 257 N.Y.S.2d 491 (1st Dept. 1965)). The complaint herein contains no such allegation and, so, is fatally The motion to dismiss for lack of......
-
Teplin v. Manafort
...failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendant conducted any business within the State. (Schnall v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Inc., 23 A.D.2d 652, 257 N.Y.S.2d 491). There is lacking even a colorable claim of jurisdiction over this non-resident. The defendant Friend is a Flori......
-
Sharp Export Limited v. Mulco Products, Inc.
...that plaintiff's affidavit showing jurisdictional facts, although not alleged in the complaint, is sufficient (Schmall v. Clearfield Cheese Co., 23 A.D.2d 652, 257 N.Y.S.2d 491). Defendant's motion is ...