From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adams v. Bodum Incorporated

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 25, 1994
208 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that, in personal injury action, personal jurisdiction existed over manufacturer under CPLR 302 because exclusive distributorship agreement "provided ample basis for [trial court's] finding that [manufacturer] should have reasonably expected that persons in New York would be purchasing and using its coffee maker"

Summary of this case from DANIELEWICZ v. CLAAS KGAA MBH
See 2 Summaries

Opinion

October 25, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).

Defendant-appellant manufacturer's exclusive distributorship agreement with co-defendant distributor, covering as it did the entire United States, provided ample basis for the IAS Court's finding that appellant should have reasonably expected that persons in New York would be purchasing and using its coffee maker (see, Darienzo v. Wise Shoe Stores, 74 A.D.2d 342). Moreover, it is not disputed that defendant-appellant received substantial revenues from interstate or international commerce.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Summaries of

Adams v. Bodum Incorporated

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 25, 1994
208 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

holding that, in personal injury action, personal jurisdiction existed over manufacturer under CPLR 302 because exclusive distributorship agreement "provided ample basis for [trial court's] finding that [manufacturer] should have reasonably expected that persons in New York would be purchasing and using its coffee maker"

Summary of this case from DANIELEWICZ v. CLAAS KGAA MBH

In Adams, the First Department found that a foreign coffee maker manufacturer's exclusive distributorship agreement with a domestic distributor, covering all of the United States, provided a sufficient basis for finding that the manufacturer should have reasonably expected that New York residents would be purchasing and using its product.

Summary of this case from Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc.
Case details for

Adams v. Bodum Incorporated

Case Details

Full title:LISA ADAMS, Respondent, v. BODUM INCORPORATED et al., Respondents, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 25, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 316

Citing Cases

Sung Hwan Co. v. Rite Aid Corp.

Herzfeld Rubin, P.C., New York City ( David B. Hamm, Herbert Rubin, Ian Ceresney, Martin Evans, Michael…

Thompson v. Nishimoto Co.

The holding in Kernan (supra) finds other support. (See, Adams v. Bodum Inc., 208 A.D.2d 450 [1st Dept 1994]…

12 Citing Cases