Yardis Corp. v. Cirami
| Decision Date | 10 January 1974 |
| Citation | 351 N.Y.S.2d 586,76 Misc.2d 793 |
| Parties | YARDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Gary T. CIRAMI et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Arthur W. Baily, New York City, for plaintiff.
Blumenthal, Barandes, Rabbino & Arnold, New York City, for defendants, Cirami.
This is a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment against the individual defendants. The corporate defendants are in default.
This appears to be a case of first impression as the Court has been unable to find any cases in point. The question presented is: Do the activities a corporate officer and/or employee in a sister state constitute doing business so as to confer jurisdiction over said officer or employee where service has been made in this state under a long arm statute?
Plaintiff's motion is based on a default judgment obtained in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Service was made on the individual defendants pursuant to a 'long arm' statute based upon their allegedly doing business in Pennsylvania.
A judgment obtained in a court of another state is entitled to full faith and credit unless there was no jurisdiction or an extrinsic fraud committed against the Court. Oldham v. McRoberts, 21 A.D.2d 231, 249 N.Y.S.2d 780, aff'd 15 N.Y.2d 891, 258 N.Y.S.2d 424, 206 N.E.2d 358. The individual defendants state in their affidavit that they did not do any business in Pennsylvania as individuals. Any acts done in said state were as an officer and employee of Whitney Cambridge, Ltd., a New York corporation. The plaintiff does not in any way refute this. The reply affidavit submitted on its behalf is by the attorney who does not allege anything to contradict the individual defendants. Under such circumstances the individual defendants were not doing business in Pennsylvania. But, the corporation was. Consequently, the service on the individual defendants pursuant to a long arm statute did not confer jurisdiction over the individual defendants. Therefore, summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is granted in favor of the individual defendants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lámar v. American Basketball Ass'n
...in New York. See Lutz Feed Co., Inc. v. Audet & Co., Inc., 72 Misc.2d 28, 337 N.Y.S.2d 852 (S.Ct.1972); Yardis Corp. v. Cirami, 76 Misc.2d 793, 351 N.Y.S.2d 586 (S.Ct.1974); Merkel, supra; Lehigh Valley Indus., Inc. v. Birenbaum, 389 F.Supp. 798 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 527 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1975)......
-
Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp.
...of the jurisdictional doctrine the Second Circuit attributed to it. Some courts have also found a suggestion in Yardis Corp. v. Cirami, 76 Misc.2d 793, 351 N.Y.S.2d 586, that the fiduciary shield doctrine had been adopted in this State. Yardis did not involve interpretation of New York's lo......
-
Laufer v. Ostrow
...Corp., 619 F.2d 902, 906; Lehigh Val. Inds. v. Birenbaum, 527 F.2d 87, 93; Weller v. Cromwell Oil Co., 504 F.2d 927; Yardis Corp. v. Cirami, 76 Misc.2d 793, 351 N.Y.S.2d 586). Nor does the claimed conversion cause of action furnish any basis for CPLR 302 jurisdiction over Ostrow individuall......
-
Bastille Properties, Inc. v. Hometels of Am., Inc.
...only over the corporation. Merkel Assoc., Inc. v. Bellofram Corp., 437 F.Supp. 612, 617 (W.D. N.Y.1977); Yardis Corp. v. Cirami, 76 Misc.2d 793, 351 N.Y.S.2d 586 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 1974). Yet it is clear from the in camera exhibit submitted to the court that the discussions between Woolley......