From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stark v. Spitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 20, 1972
38 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Summary

In Stark v. Spitz, 38 A.D.2d 966, 331 N.Y.S.2d 709 (2d Dep't 1972), plaintiff brought an action in New York to recover on an instrument for the payment of money against a non-domiciliary defendant.

Summary of this case from First City Federal Sav. Bank v. Dennis

Opinion

March 20, 1972


In an action to recover upon instruments for the payment of money only, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated August 30, 1971, which denied their motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213) and granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Order modified by striking therefrom the second decretal paragraph, which granted the cross motion and by substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. The record indicates that one Salvatore Conforti, at the request of defendant, a nondomiciliary, solicited plaintiffs in the State of New York for the purposes of having them enter into a business proposition with defendant. In addition, Conforti arranged a meeting between the parties in Pennsylvania; and, even subsequent thereto, he received instructions from defendant regarding the transaction and delivered relevant documents from defendant to plaintiffs in New York. Under these circumstances, defendant, through Conforti, engaged in purposeful activity and transacted business within this State so as to subject himself to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of this State within the meaning of CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1) ( Parke-Bernet Galleries v. Franklyn, 26 N.Y.2d 13; Hodom v. Stearns, 32 A.D.2d 234). Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, however, was properly denied, since issues of fact were raised by the affidavits submitted to Special Term which can only be resolved at trial. Rabin, P.J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stark v. Spitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 20, 1972
38 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

In Stark v. Spitz, 38 A.D.2d 966, 331 N.Y.S.2d 709 (2d Dep't 1972), plaintiff brought an action in New York to recover on an instrument for the payment of money against a non-domiciliary defendant.

Summary of this case from First City Federal Sav. Bank v. Dennis

In Stark v. Spitz, 38 A.D.2d 966, 331 N.Y.S.2d 709 (2d Dept. 1972), the Court found that defendant had transacted business within the meaning of Section 302(a)(1) where, through an agent, it had solicited plaintiffs and delivered relevant documents to plaintiffs in New York.

Summary of this case from M. L. Byers, Inc. v. HRG Productions, Inc.
Case details for

Stark v. Spitz

Case Details

Full title:WILLAM K. STARK et al., Appellants, v. EUGENE B. SPITZ, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 20, 1972

Citations

38 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

Teachers Ins. Annuity Ass'n of America v. Butler

" Indeed, under New York law: Louis Marx Co. v. Fuji Seiko Co., 453 F. Supp. 385, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)…

M. L. Byers, Inc. v. HRG Productions, Inc.

In a case similar to that at bar, even fewer contacts than those present here were found sufficient to…