Summary
holding that, in personal injury action, personal jurisdiction existed over manufacturer under CPLR 302 because exclusive distributorship agreement "provided ample basis for [trial court's] finding that [manufacturer] should have reasonably expected that persons in New York would be purchasing and using its coffee maker"
Summary of this case from DANIELEWICZ v. CLAAS KGAA MBHOpinion
October 25, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
Defendant-appellant manufacturer's exclusive distributorship agreement with co-defendant distributor, covering as it did the entire United States, provided ample basis for the IAS Court's finding that appellant should have reasonably expected that persons in New York would be purchasing and using its coffee maker (see, Darienzo v. Wise Shoe Stores, 74 A.D.2d 342). Moreover, it is not disputed that defendant-appellant received substantial revenues from interstate or international commerce.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.