From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin v. McTamney

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 28, 1983
59 N.Y.2d 651 (N.Y. 1983)

Summary

holding that where a Pennsylvania company's only contact with New York was several telephone conversations with a New York company, such communications were not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident

Summary of this case from Escalona v. Combs

Opinion

Submitted March 23, 1983

Decided April 28, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, HILDA G. SCHWARTZ, J.

David B. Eizenman and Joel David Sharrow for appellant.

Mitchell L. Marinello and Raymond T. Munsell for respondent.


Order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division ( 89 A.D.2d 540).

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG, MEYER and SIMONS.


Summaries of

Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin v. McTamney

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 28, 1983
59 N.Y.2d 651 (N.Y. 1983)

holding that where a Pennsylvania company's only contact with New York was several telephone conversations with a New York company, such communications were not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident

Summary of this case from Escalona v. Combs
Case details for

Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin v. McTamney

Case Details

Full title:L.F. ROTHSCHILD, UNTERBERG, TOWBIN, Appellant, v. BERNARD McTAMNEY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 28, 1983

Citations

59 N.Y.2d 651 (N.Y. 1983)
463 N.Y.S.2d 197
449 N.E.2d 1275

Citing Cases

Bluman v. Labock Tech., Inc.

In order to support his claim for personal jurisdiction over defendant in New York, however, plaintiff…

W-Systems Corp. v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union

When conducting a personal jurisdiction analysis under CPLR 302 (a) (1), the primary consideration is the…