Schultz v. Hyman

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore CALLAHAN
Citation607 N.Y.S.2d 824,201 A.D.2d 956
PartiesBetty 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 Date04 February 1994

Page 824

607 N.Y.S.2d 824
201 A.D.2d 956
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.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Fourth Department.
Feb. 4, 1994.

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
5 practice notes
  • Morrison v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Abril 1997
    ...& 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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 9 Febrero 2018
    ...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).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 10 Noviembre 1997
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 27 Abril 1994
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Morrison v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Abril 1997
    ...& 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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 9 Febrero 2018
    ...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).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 10 Noviembre 1997
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 27 Abril 1994
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT