From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chiosie v. Chiosie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 1984
104 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

October 22, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Benson, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Gene Chiosie instituted this action to recover damages for the tortious removal of his children from the State of New York, and the continued actions of the defendants in keeping the children's whereabouts unknown to him. He alleged that appellant participated in a conspiracy to remove his children from New York, thus making the tortious overacts of her coconspirators in New York a sufficient basis to exert personal jurisdiction over her under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par 2).

The affidavits and depositions submitted in support and in opposition to appellant's motion for summary judgment as to her raise sufficient factual allegations of appellant's participation in an alleged conspiracy to preclude summary judgment on her defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Appellant provided the alleged coconspirators with her car on the day the children were abducted from New York. There were additional allegations, which appellant did not deny, that she lied to plaintiff regarding the children's and coconspirators' whereabouts on the day in question, and later withheld information concerning their whereabouts. While appellant is a domiciliary of the State of New Jersey, and asserted that she never entered New York, it is sufficient for purposes of long-arm jurisdiction that tortious acts of the alleged coconspirators were committed in New York ( Reeves v Phillips, 54 A.D.2d 854; American Broadcasting Cos. v Hernreich, 40 A.D.2d 800; Lamarr v Klein, 35 A.D.2d 248, aff'd 30 N.Y.2d 757).

Appellant's assertions that her participation in the abduction was unwilling, and that there was no conspiracy, are facts which are within defendants' exclusive knowledge, and her credibility should not be determined on affidavits ( Krupp v Aetna Life Cas. Co., 103 A.D.2d 252).

Accordingly, the appellant did not establish her defense sufficiently to warrant the court, as a matter of law, in directing judgment in her favor (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]). Mollen, P.J., Gibbons, O'Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chiosie v. Chiosie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 1984
104 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Chiosie v. Chiosie

Case Details

Full title:GENE CHIOSIE, Individually and as Guardian and Natural Parent of…

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

Date published: Oct 22, 1984

Citations

104 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

State, Dept. of Treasury v. Qwest

In Matsumoto v. Matsumoto, 335 N.J.Super. 174, 180-85, 762 A.2d 224 (App.Div.), affd and modified on other…

Matsumoto v. Matsumoto

1989) (actions of nonresident grandparents in conspiring with ex-husband to remove minor from lawful custody…