Simonson v. International Bank
| Decision Date | 06 March 1962 |
| Parties | Albert C. SIMONSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BANK, also known as International Bank of Washington, Defendant-Respondent, and Allied Transportation Corporation and Lake International Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Barry Golomb, New York City, of counsel (Wasserman & Shagan, New York City, attorneys) for plaintiff-appellant.
Emanuel Becker, New York City, of counsel (McLanahan, Merritt & Ingraham, New York City, attorneys) for defendant-respondent, appearing specially.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, VALENTE, McNALLY and EAGER, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the motion of defendant, International Bank, to vacate service and dismiss the summons and complaint on the ground that said defendant is a foreign corporation not doing business in this State and hence not subject to personal jurisdiction. Service of process was duly made on an officer of the corporation, pursuant to section 229 of the Civil Practice Act.
Appellant urges that there was jurisdiction over International Bank by virtue of section 225, subd. (1) of the General Corporation Law. That section provides that an action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by another foreign corporation or by a nonresident where (1) the action is brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract made within the State. There is an allegation in the complaint that the contract sued upon was made in New York.
Plaintiff has failed to distinguish the requirements of sections such as 224 and 225 of the General Corporation Law--which are in effect venue statutes--from the Constitutional dictates of due process. As Justice Breitel wrote for this Court in Fremay v. Modern Plastic Mach. Corp., 15 A.D.2d 235, 237, 222 N.Y.S.2d 694, 696:
'Section 225 of the General Corporation Law provides the circumstances in which an action may be maintained against a foreign corporation by another foreign corporation or by a non-resident.'
It should be noted that section 224 of the General Corporation Law provides that an action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by a resident of the State, or by a domestic corporation, for any cause of action.
But in order for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a foreign corporation under existing statutes governing service of process, in an action otherwise properly brought under sections 224 and 225 of the General Corporation Law, it must also appear that the foreign corporation is doing business in this State. The trend in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, from International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, to Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, has been toward expanding the area in which a state may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation. (See McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223.) In International Shoe the flexible standard adopted by the Court for in personam jurisdiction over a foreign corporation was whether the corporation had certain 'minimum contracts' with the state such that the maintenance of the suit did not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice'. That elastic guide left it to the states to determine jurisdiction upon the particular facts in each case.
The question presented in the instant case is whether the making of an isolated contract in the state will be considered by the New York courts as satisfying the rule of 'minimum contracts'. In McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, the Supreme Court found an isolated contract in the insurance field sufficient, together with other circumstances, to provide a basis for jurisdiction. The special interest of states in insurance or the application of the police power of states may well account for that decision. Some states, following the relaxation of the requirements by the Supreme Court, have adopted statutes giving jurisdiction on the basis of a single contract. (See statutes listed in 34 St. Johns L. Rev., p. 314, n. 37.) Although Compania de Astral, S.A. v. Boston Metals Co., 205 Md. 237, 107 A.2d 357, cert. denied 348 U.S. 943, 75 S.Ct. 365, 99 L.Ed. 738 purported to sustain such a statute, based on an isolated contract, there were other considerations which can explain that decision. (See 26 Albany L. Rev. 71.)
New York has not changed the rule that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roorda v. VOLKSWAGENWERK, AG, Civ. A. No. 76-2237.
...relationship, Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 336, 45 S.Ct. 250, 69 L.Ed. 634 (1925); Simonson v. International Bank, 16 A.D.2d 55, 225 N.Y.S.2d 392, aff'd 14 N.Y.2d 281, 251 N.Y.S.2d 433, 200 N.E.2d 427 (1962). The parent may be subject to jurisdiction where the subsid......
-
Top Form Mills, Inc. v. SOCIEDAD NATIONALE IND., ETC.
...foreign parent, Cannon Mfg. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 336, 45 S.Ct. 250, 69 L.Ed. 634 (1925); Simonson v. International Bank, 16 A.D.2d 55, 225 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1st Dept.), aff'd, 14 N.Y.2d 281, 251 N.Y.S.2d 433, 200 N.E.2d 427 (1962), New York courts have regularly held that the ac......
-
Freeman v. Gordon & Breach, Science Publishers, Inc.
...relationship, Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 336, 45 S.Ct. 250, 69 L.Ed. 634 (1925); Simonson v. International Bank, 16 A.D.2d 55, 225 N. Y.S.2d 392, aff'd 14 N.Y.2d 281, 251 N.Y.S.2d 433, 200 N.E.2d 427 (1962). The parent may be subject to jurisdiction where the subsi......
-
Bryant v. Finnish Nat. Airline
...the maintenance of the suit did not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice'.' (Simonson v. International Bank, 16 A.D.2d 55, 57, 225 N.Y.S.2d 392, 394, aff'd 14 N.Y.2d 281, 251 N.Y.S.2d 433, 200 N.E.2d 427.) But '[t]he International Shoe case * * * merely developed......