Wirth v. Prenyl, S. A.
| Decision Date | 21 March 1968 |
| Citation | 29 A.D.2d 373,288 N.Y.S.2d 377 |
| Parties | Joseph W. WIRTH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PRENYL, S.A., Hector A. Briozzo, Hector A. Briozzo, S.A. and Sniafa, S.A., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Herbert F. Roth, New York City, of counsel (Alan M. Gelb, New York City, with him on the brief; Amen, Weisman, Finley & Butler, New York City, attorneys) for appellants.
Roy L. Weiss, New York City, of counsel (Eiber, Okin, Rafsky & Feldman, New York City, attorneys) for respondent.
Before BOTEIN, P.J., and EAGER, CAPOZZOLI, TILZER and McGIVERN, JJ.
In 1959 Prenyl, S.A., an Argentinian corporation, entered into a contract with Von Kohorn International Corporation (hereinafter 'Von Kohorn'), a New York corporation having its principal place of business in Westchester County in this State, for the construction by Von Kohorn of a nylon yarn plant in Argentina. To effectuate payment, a series of promissory notes was executed in Argentina and delivered by the defendants, domiciliaries of the Republic of Argentina, to a Buenos Aires bank, which in turn forwarded the notes to Manufacturers Trust Company of this City. The latter was to deliver the notes to Von Kohorn upon presentation of bills of lading and sight drafts (as evidenced by the receipt of the Midland Bank Ltd., of London, England, covering the shipment from the United Kingdom to Buenos Aires of machinery and equipment for the manufacture of nylon yarn cloth). The Trust Company was instructed to insert in the notes, prior to release, the date from which interest would be computed, such date to correspond to the date of the bill of lading. Each of the notes required payment to be made at Manufacturers Trust Company in this City, upon maturity.
The instant action is brought on one of these promissory notes, dated November 15, 1959, and delivered to the payee Von Kohorn in New York on January 12, 1961, payable November 15, 1961. On June 30, 1961, this $4,000 note was assigned to the plaintiff, the treasurer of Von Kohorn, a New York domiciliary. On the due date the note was presented to Manufacturers Trust Company, but payment was refused. Action was commenced by plaintiff in March 1966 by personal service upon defendants in Argentina.
The fact that such note was delivered, completed and made payable in New York, and that breach of payment occurred here, are entirely insufficient in themselves to confer jurisdiction upon the courts of this State under CPLR 302(a)(1). Nor are the scales tipped in favor of subjecting defendants to jurisdiction by the additional fact that the place of payment, New York, was not a fortuitous event, but was intentionally designed to accommodate plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Esi, Inc. v. Coastal Corp.
...(S.D.N.Y.1995); Colson Services Corp. v. Bank of Baltimore, 712 F.Supp. 28, 31 (S.D.N.Y.1989); see also Wirth v. Prenyl, S.A., 29 A.D.2d 373, 375, 288 N.Y.S.2d 377, 379 (1st Dep't 1968) (declining to find jurisdiction where no commercial benefit accrued to defendants by fixing the place of ......
-
National Am. Corp. v. Federal Rep. of Nigeria
...activity similar to that present here and have found it insufficient to support longarm jurisdiction. In Wirth v. Prenyl, 29 A.D.2d 373, 288 N.Y.S.2d 377 (1st Dep't 1968) the defendant Argentinian corporation contracted with the plaintiff, a New York corporation, for the purchase of machine......
-
Sterling Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of New York v. Fidelity Mortg. Investors
...Westervelt & Mottelay, Inc. v. Harsh Building Co., 28 A.D.2d 295, 284 N.Y.S.2d 879 (1st Dept. 1967); Wirth v. Prenyl, S.A., 29 A.D.2d 373, 288 N.Y.S.2d 377 (1st Dept. 1968). But see G. Benedict Corp. v. Epstein, 47 Misc.2d 316, 262 N.Y.S.2d 726 (S.Ct. Albany Cty. 1965). 3 Nor, Fidelity argu......
-
Walker v. Smith
...were executed and payable in California; defendant made a single visit to New York on other business); Wirth v. Prenyl, S.A., 29 A.D.2d 373, 375, 288 N.Y.S.2d 377 (1st Dep't 1968) (note in connection with shipment of goods to Argentina was delivered, completed, and made payable in New York ......