William Rand, Inc. v. Joyas De Fantasia, S.A.
| Decision Date | 20 January 1964 |
| Citation | 41 Misc.2d 838,246 N.Y.S.2d 778 |
| Parties | WILLIAM RAND, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOYAS DE FANTASIA, S. A., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Krieger & Tick, New York City (Jerome H. Tick and Irving Sadur, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Simeon F. Gross and Elliot S. Gross, New York City, appearing specially for Joyas DeFantasia, S. A.
This is a motion to set aside the service of a summons upon the president of a foreign corporation while he was in this State temporarily. The summons was served July 15, 1963 and the motion to set aside was made August 2, 1963.
On September 1, 1963 the Civil Practice Law and Rules went into effect. Among these new provisions was CPLR § 302 known as the 'single act statute'. Under said section, among other things, personal jurisdiction may now be acquired over a nondomiciliary as to causes of action arising out of transaction of any business by the defendant in New York. It cannot be disputed that the cause of action herein arises out of such transaction of business (§ 302 CPLR).
The question is whether or not the new act should be retroactively applied. Such intention can be gleaned from Section 10003 CPLR which provides for the application of the new CPLR to all further proceedings in pending actions, except to the extent that the court determines that such application to a particular pending action would not be feasible or would work injustice.
The courts of this State had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and no remedy was created save the procedural remedy relative to jurisdiction over the person. Retrospective application was reached by the Supreme Court of Illinois in interpreting Section 17 (subd. (1), par. [a]) of the Illinois Civil Practice Act, Ill.Rev .Stat.1961, c. 110, § 17(1)(a), which was the model for the New York statute. (See Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673.) A similar conclusion was reached in Alvin Schachter, Inc. v. Adams & Co., Inc., N.Y.L.J. December 16, 1963, page 12, column 2, Supreme Court, New York County, and Steele v. DeLeeuw, 40 Misc.2d 807, 244 N .Y.S.2d 97.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simonson v. International Bank
...some lower court cases to the contrary (see, e. g., Steele v. De Leeuw, 40 Misc.2d 807, 244 N.Y.S.2d 97; Rand, Inc., v. Joyas De Fantasia, 41 Misc.2d 838, 246 N.Y.S.2d 778), that the new section does not apply to actions instituted prior to its effective date and does not operate, by relati......
-
Ingravallo v. Pool Shipping Co.
...despite some lower court cases to the contrary (see e. g., Steele v. De Leeuw, 40 Misc.2d 807 244 N.Y.S.2d 97; Rand, Inc., v. Joyas De Fantasia, 41 Misc.2d 838 246 N.Y.S.2d 778), that the new section does not apply to actions instituted prior to its effective date and does not operate, by r......
-
Platt Corp. v. Platt
...(see Alvin Schacter, Inc. v. Adams & Co., Inc., N.Y.L.J., Dec. 16, 1963, pg. 12, col. 2, Supreme Court, N.Y.County; William Rand, Inc. v. De Fantasia, 41 Misc.2d 838, 246 N .Y.S.2d 778, Schweitzer J.; Crosney v. Hadley Corp., N.Y.L.J. Jan. 24, 1964, p. 13, col. 6, Sup.Ct., N.Y., Spec.Term P......
-
Mermis v. Weeden & Co.
...substantive right he might have against a defendant, and, as such, may be applied retroactively. William Rand, Inc., v. Joyas De Fantasia, S.A., 41 Misc.2d 838, 246 N.Y.S.2d 778 (1964); Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 209 N.E.2d 68 (1965). B......