Schultz v. Hyman
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | Before CALLAHAN |
| Citation | 607 N.Y.S.2d 824,201 A.D.2d 956 |
| Parties | Betty S. SCHULTZ, Respondent, v. Mary Kay HYMAN, Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc., Respondents, Glass Products, Inc., and Lasting Products, Inc., Appellants. Mary Kay HYMAN and Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. GLASS PRODUCTS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1994 |
Page 824
v.
Mary Kay HYMAN, Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc., Respondents,
Glass Products, Inc., and Lasting Products, Inc.,
Appellants.
Mary Kay HYMAN and Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc., Third-Party
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
GLASS PRODUCTS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Fourth Department.
Saperston & Day, P.C. (Thomas Cronmiller, of counsel), Rochester, for appellants--Glass Products, Inc., and Lasting Products, Inc.
Rosemary G. Roberts, Rush, for respondent, Betty Schultz.
Osborn, Reed, Van De Vate, et al. by James A. Reed, Jr., Rochester, for respondents, Mary Kay Hyman and Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc.
Page 825
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and PINE, FALLON, DOERR and DAVIS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant and third-party defendant Glass Products, Inc. and defendant Lasting Products, Inc. (collectively referred to as the movants) contend that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them and the third-party complaint on the ground that the courts of this State lack personal jurisdiction over them. They contend that the exercise of in personam jurisdiction by the courts of this State violates due process standards because they do not have minimum contacts with this State. We agree.
" '[T]he constitutional touchstone' of the determination whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process 'remains whether the defendant purposefully established "minimum contacts" in the forum State' " (Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 108-109, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 94 L.Ed.2d 92, quoting [201 A.D.2d 957] Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95; see also, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490). The substantial connection between defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of "minimum contacts" "must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State" (Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., supra, 480 U.S. at 112, 107 S.Ct. at 1032). Neither "[t]he placement of a product into the stream of commerce" nor the "awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
...& Reinecke, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 209 N.E.2d 68, cert. denied 382 U.S. 905, 86 S.Ct. 241, 15 L.Ed.2d 158; Schultz v. Hyman, 201 A.D.2d 956, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824). For anyone craving a distinction, see 1 Casid, Jurisdiction in Civil Actions, supra, at § 4 In the Federal arena there has ......
-
Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 1438
...Dept. 2007] ; Kesterson v. Cambo Fotografische Industrie BV, 30 A.D.3d 301, 301, 819 N.Y.S.2d 222 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Schultz v. Hyman, 201 A.D.2d 956, 957–958, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824 [4th Dept. 1994] ). In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary defendant i......
-
Worldwide Futgol Associates v. Event Entertainment, No. CV 96-5612 (RJD).
...purposeful activity connected with New York that is constitutionally required to confer jurisdiction in New York. See Schultz v. Hyman, 201 A.D.2d 956, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824 (4th Dep't 1994) (exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant must comport not only with New York law but......
-
Benson v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
...and Carol J. Gillespie, Corporate Secretary of Corporation, and the recent decision of the Fourth Department, Schultz v. Mary Kay Hyman, 201 A.D.2d 956, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824, prompt this Court, pursuant to CPLR 2218, to direct a separate trial of the issue of personal jurisdiction of The motion......
-
Morrison v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
...& Reinecke, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 209 N.E.2d 68, cert. denied 382 U.S. 905, 86 S.Ct. 241, 15 L.Ed.2d 158; Schultz v. Hyman, 201 A.D.2d 956, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824). For anyone craving a distinction, see 1 Casid, Jurisdiction in Civil Actions, supra, at § 4 In the Federal arena there has ......
-
Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 1438
...Dept. 2007] ; Kesterson v. Cambo Fotografische Industrie BV, 30 A.D.3d 301, 301, 819 N.Y.S.2d 222 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Schultz v. Hyman, 201 A.D.2d 956, 957–958, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824 [4th Dept. 1994] ). In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary defendant i......
-
Worldwide Futgol Associates v. Event Entertainment, No. CV 96-5612 (RJD).
...purposeful activity connected with New York that is constitutionally required to confer jurisdiction in New York. See Schultz v. Hyman, 201 A.D.2d 956, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824 (4th Dep't 1994) (exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant must comport not only with New York law but......
-
Benson v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
...and Carol J. Gillespie, Corporate Secretary of Corporation, and the recent decision of the Fourth Department, Schultz v. Mary Kay Hyman, 201 A.D.2d 956, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824, prompt this Court, pursuant to CPLR 2218, to direct a separate trial of the issue of personal jurisdiction of The motion......