green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.5 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 ·
…foreseeability must be coupled with evidence of a purposeful new york affiliation, for example, a discernible effort to directly or indirectly serve the new york market
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re DES Cases
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
foreseeability must be coupled with evidence of a purposeful new york affiliation, for example, a discernible effort to directly or indirectly serve the new york market
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ashley v. Abbott Laboratories
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
foreseeability must be coupled with evidence of a purposeful new york affiliation, for example, a discernible effort to directly or indirectly serve the new york market
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Boyer Works USA, LLC v. Rubik's Brand Limited
Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652, 653 (2d Dep’t. 1982), aff’d, 60 N.Y. 2d 873, 458 (1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
E. Remy Martin & Co. v. Sire Spirits LLC
Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652, 653 (2d Dep’t. 1982), aff’d, 60 N.Y. 2d 873, 458 (1983).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc.
(3×)
Thus, New York courts have asserted that the simple likelihood or foreseeability “that a defendant’s product will find its way into New York does not satisfy this element, and that purposeful availment of the benefits of the laws of New York such that the defendant may reasonably anticipate being haled into New York court is required.” Id.; see, e.g., Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 97, 98-99 (2d Dep’t 1982) (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), and Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Lillian Kernan and Harold Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party v. Forbes Products Corporation, Third-Party and Navitas Company, Ltd., Third-Party
(3×)
Thus, New York courts have asserted that the simple likelihood or foreseeability "that a defendant's product will find its way into New York does not satisfy this element, and that purposeful availment of the benefits of the laws of New York such that the defendant may reasonably anticipate being haled into New York court is required." Id.; see, e.g., Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 97, 98-99 (2d Dep't 1982) (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), and Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek
(3×)
Kutter, Inc., 169 A.D.2d 969, 970 , 564 N.Y.S.2d 865, 866 (3d Dep’t 1991); see also Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 97 (2d Dep’t 1982), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 873 , 470 N.Y.S.2d 367 , 458 N.E.2d 826 (1983) (holding that foreseeability is restricted by the purposeful affiliation requirement that defendant “ ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state’”) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Cortlandt Racquet Club, Inc. v. Oy Saunatec, Ltd.
(3×)
Kutter, Inc., 169 A.D.2d 969 , 564 N.Y.S.2d 865 (3d Dept.1991); see also Murdock v. Arenson Intern., USA, Inc., 157 A.D.2d 110 , 554 N.Y.S.2d 887 (1st Dept. 1990). 2 *524 This point is well illustrated in Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 97 (2d Dept.1982), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 873 , 470 N.Y.S.2d 367 , 458 N.E.2d 826 (1983).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Penny v. United Fruit Co.
(3×)
See, e.g., Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 97, 99 (2d Dep’t 1982), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 873 , 470 N.Y.S.2d 367 , 458 N.E.2d 826 (1983); Darienzo v. Wise Shoe Stores, Inc., 74 A.D.2d 342 , 427 N.Y.S.2d 831, 833-34 (2d Dep’t 1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gear, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Martinez v. American Standard, 91 A.D.2d 652, 653 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 97, 98-99 (2d Dep’t. 1982), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 873 , 458 N.E.2d 826 , 470 N.Y.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Susana Martinez, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Gerardo Martinez, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
American Standard Et Al., Defendants; Tecumseh Products Company, Sued Herein as Tecumseh Products, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vitreous State Products, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And Another Third-Party Action.)
v.
American Standard Et Al., Defendants; Tecumseh Products Company, Sued Herein as Tecumseh Products, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vitreous State Products, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And Another Third-Party Action.)
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 22, 1983.
458 N.E.2d 826
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., for third-party plaintiff-appellant., Alexander V. Sansone for third-party defendant-respondent.
Cited by 33 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. New York (4)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (91 AD2d 652). In denying the discovery requested in the answering affidavit, the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law.
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye.