Schneider v. J & C Carpet Co.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1965 |
| Citation | 258 N.Y.S.2d 717,23 A.D.2d 103 |
| Parties | Jerome SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J AND C CARPET CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thomas W. Kelly, New York City, of counsel (J. Christopher Meyer, Jr., New York City, with him on the brief, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, New York City, attorneys), for defendant-appellant.
Henry Steinberg, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, RABIN, STEUER and BASTOW, JJ.
The defendant appeals from an order denying its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to cacate the service of the summons and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is no jurisdiction over defendant.
Plaintiff, a New York resident, brings this action against the defendant, a non-domiciliary Georgia Corporation, for breach of a contract of employment. It was the duty of plaintiff to 'cooperate' in all phases of the business so as to 'accomplish an increase in sales volume'. Plaintiff, as 'National Sales Representative'. solicited orders for defendant, attempted to develop substantial customers, communicated with and advised commission merchants and salesmen, and generally performed a variety of services relating to defendant's business. When the contract was first made he performed such services in Georgia. Thereafter, and until the termination of the contract, plaintiff, with the express permission of the defendant, performed such services in New York City.
The issue here is the same as was presented in Rene Boas and Associates v. Vernier, 22 A.D.2d 561, 257 N.Y.S.2d 487 [First Department] i. e., 'whether the alleged causes of action arose from any act of defendant in the transaction of business within the State, thereby conferring personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1)'.
In denying the motion to vacate, Special Term wrote:
'Under section 302(a)(1), CPLR, jurisdiction can be acquired over a non-domiciliary if 'he transacts any business whithin the state.''
Of course, Special Term intended not only that business be done within the State, but that the alleged causes of action be such as arise from an act of doing business in the this State. However, Special Term appears to have rested its decision on the ground that 'plaintiff has shown that defendant had sufficient contacts to satisfy the minimum requirement indicating that it transacted at least some business within the state.' This statement would appear to be directed towards the jurisdictional requirements under CPLR § 301. And it may very well be that the defendant's challenge to the service would be sustained if reliance for jurisdiction was based solely upon the 'doing business test', as provided in § 301, CPLR.
But, the requirements of CPLR § 302(a)(1) are met and jurisdiction can be sustained. We are not, under this section, concerned with the theory of minimal contacts, so as to hold a corporation is 'doing business' within the State, and hence subject to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Don King Productions, Inc. v. Douglas
...v. Comark, 586 F.Supp. 940, 944 (S.D.N.Y.1984), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1161 (2nd Cir.1986); see also Schneider v. J and C Carpet Co., Inc., 23 A.D.2d 103, 258 N.Y.S.2d 717, 719 (1st Dep't 1965). At the time these agreements were entered into, it was no secret to Douglas and Johnson that DKP was an......
-
United States v. Montreal Trust Company
...any business within the State, so long as the cause of action arises from any such transaction," Schneider v. J & C Carpet Co., 23 A.D.2d 103, 105, 258 N.Y.S.2d 717, 718 (1st Dept. 1965), and that while the phrase of C.P.L.R. § 302(a) (1) "`transacts any business within the state' is much l......
-
A. Millner Co. v. Noudar, Lda.
...for the defendant in New York would suffice to establish jurisdiction of the action against the defendant. (Schneider v. J & C Carpet Co., Inc., 23 A.D.2d 103, 258 N.Y.S. 717, and see American Cyanamid Company v. Rosenblatt, 16 N.Y.2d 621, 261 N.Y.S.2d 69, 209 N.E.2d 112, cert. denied 382 U......
-
Friedr. Zoellner (New York) Corp. v. Tex Metals Co.
...Black v. Oberle Rentals, Inc., 55 Misc.2d 398, 285 N.Y.S.2d 226 (1967). Order affirmed. 1 Application of the rule of Schneider v. J and C Carpet Co., 23 A.D.2d 103, 258 N.Y.S.2d 717 (1st Dep't 1965), which held that in an action by an agent against his principal the agent's acts in New York......