From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haar v. Armendaris Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 15, 1973
31 N.Y.2d 1040 (N.Y. 1973)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

adopting dissenting memorandum at 40 AD2d 769, 769-770

Summary of this case from Fischbarg v. Doucet
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

Argued February 8, 1973

Decided February 15, 1973

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, PAUL A. FINO, J.

Roger N. Greene for appellant.

Joseph Winston for respondent.

Order reversed on the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division, with costs in all courts, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint granted. Question certified answered in the negative.

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, BREITEL, JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES and WACHTLER.

Summaries of

Haar v. Armendaris Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 15, 1973
31 N.Y.2d 1040 (N.Y. 1973)

adopting dissenting memorandum at 40 AD2d 769, 769-770

Summary of this case from Fischbarg v. Doucet

In Haar v. Armendaris, 31 N.Y.2d 1040, 342 N.Y.S.2d 70, 294 N.E.2d 855 (1973), rev'g 40 A.D.2d 769, 337 N.Y.S.2d 285 (1st Dep't 1972), the attorney was retained by mail sent to him in Massachusetts from a principal in California with instructions to participate in New York negotiations. The Appellate Division sustained jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals reversed, adopting the dissent below.

Summary of this case from Wisehart, Friou Koch v. Hoover

In Haar, an attorney instituted an action in New York seeking legal fees allegedly owed him by a Delaware corporation which had retained him to perform certain services in this State. The Appellate Division held that a nonresident, through the actions of its local agent — here, the plaintiff attorney — had transacted business within the meaning of CPLR § 302(a)(1), 40 A.D.2d at 769, 337 N.Y.S.2d at 287.

Summary of this case from Pneuma-Flo Systems, Inc. v. Universal Machinery

In Haar v Armendaris Corp. (31 N.Y.2d 1040, supra), an attorney, classically an independent contractor, was termed an "agent" of his foreign client.

Summary of this case from Traub v. Robertson-American Corp.
Case details for

Haar v. Armendaris Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES M. HAAR, Respondent, v. ARMENDARIS CORPORATION, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 15, 1973

Citations

31 N.Y.2d 1040 (N.Y. 1973)
342 N.Y.S.2d 70
294 N.E.2d 855

Citing Cases

Traub v. Robertson-American Corp.

This rule is purely of judicial concoction, with no statutory compulsion. (Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn,…

Otterbourg v. Shreve City Apartments, Ltd.

Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on all but its fraud claim. In granting the motion to dismiss, the…

45 Citing Cases