From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

M. Noble v. Singapore Res. Mot., Miami Beach

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 18, 1968
21 N.Y.2d 1006 (N.Y. 1968)

Summary

holding that reservations made inside the state of New York were not closely related enough to alleged tort within Florida hotel to warrant jurisdiction under C.P.L.R. § 302

Summary of this case from Brown v. Grand Hotel Eden

Opinion

Argued April 8, 1968

Decided April 18, 1968

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, MILES F. McDONALD, J.

Irwin Strum, Bernard Helfenstein and Harvey Kupferberg for appellant.

Harry Fass for respondents.


Since the cause of action asserted against the defendant corporation did not arise from the transaction of any business in New York within the sense of CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1), the only question presented is whether the defendant's activity in the State constituted the doing of business in the traditional sense under CPLR 301. However, determination of that question (compare Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Int., 19 N.Y.2d 533, with Miller v. Surf Props., 4 N.Y.2d 475) calls for a hearing and a development of facts concerning the relationship of Dynamic Representative, Inc. to the defendant, the scope of its activities on said defendant's behalf, all of which are insufficiently disclosed in the contradictory affidavits before us in the present record, and any other relevant facts bearing on the issue of jurisdiction.

The order should be reversed, with costs in all courts, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The question certified should be answered in the negative.

Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, KEATING, BREITEL and JASEN concur.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

M. Noble v. Singapore Res. Mot., Miami Beach

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 18, 1968
21 N.Y.2d 1006 (N.Y. 1968)

holding that reservations made inside the state of New York were not closely related enough to alleged tort within Florida hotel to warrant jurisdiction under C.P.L.R. § 302

Summary of this case from Brown v. Grand Hotel Eden

hearing was necessary to determine scope of relationship between defendant and alleged New York agent prior to ruling on question of whether defendant is doing business in New York

Summary of this case from Exclaim Assoc. Ltd. v. Nygate
Case details for

M. Noble v. Singapore Res. Mot., Miami Beach

Case Details

Full title:MADELINE NOBLE et al., Respondents, v. SINGAPORE RESORT MOTEL OF MIAMI…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 18, 1968

Citations

21 N.Y.2d 1006 (N.Y. 1968)
290 N.Y.S.2d 926
238 N.E.2d 328

Citing Cases

Wisselman v. Mount Snow, Ltd.

New York courts have consistently held that when no direct relation exists between the wrong sued upon and…

NEW WORLD SOURCING GROUP, INC. v. SGS SA

Ltd. v Nygate, 10 Misc3d 1063 (A), 2005 NY Slip Op 52110 U [Sup Ct, NY County 2005], citing Brandt, 273 AD2d…