Schultz v. Hyman
| Decision Date | 04 February 1994 |
| 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. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
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.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and PINE, FALLON, DOERR and DAVIS, JJ.
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 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" constitutes action purposefully directed toward the forum State (Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., supra, at 112, 107 S.Ct. at 1032). Moreover, the concept of foreseeability is an insufficient basis to find in personam jurisdiction (see, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567; Martinez v. American Std., 91 A.D.2d 652, 457 N.Y.S.2d 97, aff'd 60 N.Y.2d 873, 470 N.Y.S.2d 367, 458 N.E.2d 826).
Here, the movants demonstrated that they do not have the requisite minimum contacts with New York to enable the courts of this State to exercise in personam jurisdiction over them. The movants do no business in New York. They sell, distribute and deliver their products exclusively within the State of Texas. The movants' awareness that some of their products placed into the stream of commerce will reach this State does not establish minimum contacts sufficient to render this State's exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with fair play and substantial justice, as required by the Due Process Clause (see, Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., supra ).
Additionally, and apart from the due process claim, the movants contend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
... ... v. Barnes & 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 § 1.01(2) ... ...
-
Williams v. Beemiller, Inc.
... ... 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, 957958, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824 [4th Dept. 1994] ). In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a ... ...
-
Worldwide Futgol Associates v. Event Entertainment
... ... 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 ... ...
-
Benson v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
... ... , Laboratories' quality control was the responsibility of Corporation's Quality Assurance and Technical Services (QATS) which was headed by Hyman Mitchner, formerly Vice-President of Quality Control for Laboratories. This group's responsibilities included the following: ... a ... Beinstock, Esq. 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 ... ...
-
This Ain't the Texas Two Step Folks: Disharmony, Confusion, and the Unfair Nature of Personal Jurisdiction Analysis in the Fifth Circuit
...or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State.”); Schultz v. Hyman, 607 N.Y.S.2d 824, 824 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) (same); Sherry v. Geissler U. Pehr GmbH, 651 N.E.2d 1383, 1388 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (same); Graham v. Mach. Distrib.......