State v. Davies
| Decision Date | 29 December 1966 |
| Parties | , 223 N.E.2d 570 The STATE of New York, Respondent, v. Donald F. DAVIES, Appellant, and Associated Building Contractors of the Triple Cities, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 24 A.D.2d 240, 265 N.Y.S.2d 358.
The State of New York brought action for an injunction and civil monetary penalties for alleged violations of Section 340 of the General Business Law, Consol.Laws, c. 20, by defendants including defendant Davies, who was executive secretary of defendant association. The complaint alleged that defendants conspired to effect elimination of specifications from certain public construction contracts and adoption of uniform terms and conditions relating to such contracts, and that they engaged in threats and other means of compulsion to obtain those ends, and that defendant Davies was a resident of Ohio and that cause of action against him arose from specified tortious acts allegedly committed by him within New York State. The summons and complaint in the action were served on December Davies in Akron, Ohio in January, 1965.
Defendant Davies, in support of motion to dismiss, alleged that he had been a domiciliary of New York when acts set forth in the complaint were allegedly committed, and that CPLR 302 dealing with jurisdiction over nondomiciliary was applicable only to tortious acts allegedly committed in New York by nondomiciliary and not to those allegedly committed by a domiciliary who thereafter departed the state and was a non-domiciliary when served, and that his alleged acts did not come within purview of CPLR 302, and that it could not be invoked to afford New York courts jurisdiction over nondomiciliary on causes of action which were penal in nature.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Broome County, David F. Lee, Jr., J., entered an order granting the motion of the defendant Davies to dismiss the complaint on ground of lack of jurisdiction of his person, and the State of New York appealed.
The Appellate Division entered a resettled order which reversed, on the law, the order and judgment of the Special Term, and held that CPLR 302 was applicable to defendant Davies, and that, despite the fact that the action sought redress for a public rather than a private wrong and thus was arguably penal in nature, it was a civil proceeding and was therefore governed by CPLR 302, and that it was immaterial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Launer v. Buena Vista Winery, Inc., CV-95-1980 (DGT).
...283, 287 (1st Dep't 1992); see also State v. Davies, 24 A.D.2d 240, 265 N.Y.S.2d 358 (3d Dep't 1965), aff'd., 18 N.Y.2d 950, 277 N.Y.S.2d 146, 223 N.E.2d 570 (1966). While the defendants assert that the telephone and mail contacts are not enough to rely upon as a basis for jurisdiction, esp......
-
Harmon v. Eudaily
...Law (McKinney) § 302(c), construed in State v. Davies, 24 A.D.2d 240, 265 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1965), aff'd., Ct.App., 18 N.Y.2d 950, 277 N.Y.S.2d 146, 223 N.E.2d 570 (1966), closely resembles the portion of § 3104(c) quoted above ("nondomiciliary" is substituted for "nonresident"). The Court, rej......
-
Eudaily v. Harmon
...N.Y.Supr.Ct., 24 A.D.2d 240, 265 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1965), resettled, 25 A.D.2d 690, 268 N.Y.S.2d 927, aff'd, N.Y.Ct.App., 18 N.Y.2d 950, 277 N.Y.S.2d 146, 223 N.E.2d 570 (1966); Kinchla v. Baumner, N.H.Supr., 114 N.H. 818, 330 A.2d 112 (1974); Jackson v. Keske, Ohio Supr., 20 Ohio St.2d 89, 253......
-
Henry Sash & Door Co. v. Medi-Complex Limited
...253), legislative enactment was not forthcoming. Fortunately, State v. Davies, 24 A.D.2d 240, 265 N.Y.S.2d 358, aff'd 18 N.Y.2d 950, 277 N.Y.S.2d 146, 223 N.E.2d 570 stated that non-domicile at the time of service is sufficient for jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (See also Tebedo v. Nye, 45 Mis......
-
Personal Jurisdiction
...when plaintiff files suit [see §7:32]). [ State v. Davies , 24 AD2d 240, 265 NYS2d 358 (3d Dept 1965), aff’d 18 NY2d 950, 277 NYS2d 146, 223 N.E.2d 570 (1966).] This ‘stop-gap’ ruling also applies to corporate defendants. [ Sharp Export, Ltd. v. Mulco Products, Inc., 50 Misc2d 611, 270 NYS2......
-
Personal Jurisdiction
...when plaintiff files suit [see §7:32]). [ State v. Davies , 24 AD2d 240, 265 NYS2d 358 (3d Dept 1965), aff’d 18 NY2d 950, 277 NYS2d 146, 223 N.E.2d 570 (1966).] This ‘stop-gap’ ruling also applies to corporate defendants. [ Sharp Export, Ltd. v. Mulco Products, Inc., 50 Misc2d 611, 270 NYS2......
-
Personal Jurisdiction
...when plaintiff files suit [see §7:32]). [ State v. Davies , 24 AD2d 240, 265 NYS2d 358 (3d Dept 1965), aff’d 18 NY2d 950, 277 NYS2d 146, 223 N.E.2d 570 (1966).] This ‘stop-gap’ ruling also applies to corporate defendants. [ Sharp Export, Ltd. v. Mulco Products, Inc., 50 Misc2d 611, 270 NYS2......