From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaddis Mfg. v. Gil-Bar Rubber Products

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1984
103 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

July 13, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O'Donnell, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The contract, according to its terms, was executed in New York. Defendant performed purposeful acts in New York by taking delivery of the goods in Rochester through its carrier and thereafter by returning a portion of the goods to Rochester for repair (see CPLR 302, subd [a], par 1; Reiner Co. v. Schwartz, 41 N.Y.2d 648, 654; Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes Reinecke, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 457; Dulman v Potomac Baking Co., 85 A.D.2d 676, 677; cf. Katz Son Billiard Prods. v. Correale Sons, 26 A.D.2d 52, affd 20 N.Y.2d 903).


Summaries of

Kaddis Mfg. v. Gil-Bar Rubber Products

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1984
103 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Kaddis Mfg. v. Gil-Bar Rubber Products

Case Details

Full title:KADDIS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent, v. GIL-BAR RUBBER PRODUCTS…

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

Date published: Jul 13, 1984

Citations

103 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Imagesat Int'l N.V.

20 NY2d at 15. Abundant precedent indicates that although the defendant's execution of a contract in issue…