Skolnik v. Rose
| Decision Date | 16 February 1982 |
| Citation | 55 N.Y.2d 964,434 N.E.2d 251,449 N.Y.S.2d 182 |
| Parties | , 434 N.E.2d 251 Beatrice SKOLNIK, Appellant, v. Cornelius C. ROSE, Jr., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 77 A.D.2d 837, 431 N.Y.S.2d 25, with costs.
The Appellate Division correctly held that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to give the shareholders notice of the suit as is required by the laws of Massachusetts. In this case, as in Greenspun v. Lindley, 36 N.Y.2d 473, 369 N.Y.S.2d 123, 330 N.E.2d 298, the trust agreement expressly provides that the laws of Massachusetts, the State where the trust was created, should be controlling. Plaintiff's contention that the laws of New York should be applicable is based on allegations that the trust had significant contacts with the State in that it "acquired its original core of shareholders" in 1968 by entering a reorganization agreement with a corporation based in New York, that the trust still has a significant number of shareholders in this State and does a significant amount of business here. Plaintiff claims that this distinguishes the case from Greenspun, where there was no proof of any "significant association or cluster of significant contacts" with this State. She does not contend, and indeed, could not on this record, that the party's express choice of the laws of Massachusetts should not be enforced because the trust does not have any contacts with that State. In our view the factors alleged do not invoke any overriding policy consideration under the laws of New York and do not provide a compelling reason or justification for disregarding the express agreement of the parties that their rights under the trust should be governed by the laws of Massachusetts, the State where the trust was founded.
In addition we note that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient factual predicate to assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant Prickett.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terrydale Liquidating Trust v. Barness
...of Trust designated Missouri law as applicable, we conclude that Missouri law should be applied. See Skolnik v. Rose, 55 N.Y.2d 964, 434 N.E.2d 251, 449 N.Y.S.2d 182 (1982). To the extent that no directly applicable Missouri precedents exist, we shall refer to the law of other jurisdictions......
-
Norlin Corp. v. Rooney, Pace Inc.
...applied in a case in which some or all of these factors dictated the application of New York law. See, e.g., Skolnik v. Rose, 55 N.Y.2d 964, 449 N.Y.S.2d 182, 434 N.E.2d 251 (1982); Rottenberg v. Pfeiffer, 86 Misc.2d 556, 383 N.Y.S.2d 189 (Sup.Ct.1976), aff'd, 59 A.D.2d 756, 398 N.Y.S.2d 70......
-
Hart v. General Motors Corp.
...the investment trust may be said to be present." (Id., at 477, 369 N.Y.S.2d 123, 330 N.E.2d 79; see, also, Skolnik v. Rose, 55 N.Y.2d 964, 965-966, 449 N.Y.S.2d 182, 434 N.E.2d 251.) Moreover, contrary to the motion court's finding, GM's incorporation in Delaware cannot be dismissed as mere......
-
Lewis v. Dicker
...which would preclude application of the more onerous Pennsylvania law. (See Rottenberg v. Pfeiffer, supra; Skolnik v. Rose, 55 N.Y.2d 964, 449 N.Y.S.2d 182, 434 N.E.2d 251 [1982] Thus, this court concludes that the rights of the parties are governed by Pennsylvania law. Having so determined......