From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roder v. Goldsmith

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 3, 1966
49 Misc. 2d 882 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)

Opinion

March 3, 1966

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, LOUIS I. KAPLAN, J.

Perrell, Nielsen Stephens ( Thomas O. Perrell and John Nielsen of counsel), for appellant.


The Civil Court lacked the power to assert in personam jurisdiction over the defendant on the basis of personal service of process in Nassau County. The action is founded on an out-of-city tort; the defendant is a nonresident of New York City, and the fact that he is regularly employed within the city will not justify extraterritorial service.

The orders should be reversed, with $10 costs, defendant's motions granted and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

HOFSTADTER, J.P., HECHT and GOLD, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Roder v. Goldsmith

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 3, 1966
49 Misc. 2d 882 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
Case details for

Roder v. Goldsmith

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS RODER et al., Respondents, v. NATHAN GOLDSMITH, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 3, 1966

Citations

49 Misc. 2d 882 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
268 N.Y.S.2d 730

Citing Cases

Tauz v. Allstate Ins. Co.

The fact that the defendant is regularly employed within the territorial limits of the court, in itself, does…

Tauz v. Allstate Insurance

The fact that the defendant is regularly employed within the territorial limits of the court, in itself, does…