Roldan v. Dexter Folder Co., 178 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Roldan v. Dexter Folder Co., 178 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Constantine v. Stella Maris Ins., 97 A.D.3d 1129 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 590 Determining personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations6 citing casesNew Jersey container company. Sometime thereafter, the container company transferred the machine to the plaintiff’s employer, Bushwick Container Corp., located…opening of page *590 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 5 listed here
  • Constantine v. Stella Maris Ins., 97 A.D.3d 1129 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
    Although it is well established that “the burden of proving jurisdiction is on the party asserting it” (Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 590 [1991]), a plaintiff opposing a preanswer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8)…
  • CRT Investments, Ltd. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 85 A.D.3d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).published
    Plaintiffs failed to rebut defendant’s affidavit (see Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 590 [1991]), which established that BDO Tortuga has no presence in New York, that it performed the audit of the Ascot Fund in the Cayman Island…
  • Tessa Lang v. Wycoff Heights Med. Ctr., 55 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish that further discovery was warranted with respect to that issue (see CPLR 3211 [d]; Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 590 [1991]).
  • Ying Jun Chen v. Lei Shi, 19 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005).published
    As the parties seeking to assert personal jurisdiction, the plaintiffs bore the burden of proof on this issue (see Brandt v Toraby, 273 AD2d 429, 430 [2000]; Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 590 [1991]; Spectra Prods. v Indian Riv.
  • Sipa Press, Inc. v. Star-Telegram Operating, Ltd., 181 Misc. 2d 550 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999).published
    (Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 590 [2d Dept 1991]; Spectra Prods. v Indian Riv.
At page 589 In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff in both actions appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik,…1 citing caseopening of page *589 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Marist Coll. v. Brady, 84 A.D.3d 1322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    Ctr., 55 AD3d 793, 794 [2008] ; Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 589 [1991]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Natalio Roldan
v.
Dexter Folder Company, and Atlantic Can Company, (Action No. 1.) Natalio Roldan v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc., and Atlantic Can Company, (Action No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 23, 1991.
Published opinion
178 A.D.2d 589
1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16771
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff in both actions appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated February 2, 1990, which, inter alia, granted Atlantic Can Company’s motion to dismiss the complaints, insofar as they are asserted against it in both actions, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 1977 the defendant Atlantic Can Company (hereinafter Atlantic), located in Passaic, New Jersey, purchased a device known as a five-gallon can slitter for use in its production of tin cans. In 1985, in Passaic, Atlantic sold the machine to a[*590] New Jersey container company. Sometime thereafter, the container company transferred the machine to the plaintiff’s employer, Bushwick Container Corp., located in Brooklyn. While operating the can slitter in November 1986 the plaintiff sustained injuries to his right arm.

The plaintiff commenced the instant actions in the Supreme Court, Kings County, against Atlantic and other defendants, alleging, among other things, that modifications made on the machine by Atlantic contributed to his injuries. Atlantic moved to dismiss the complaints insofar as they are asserted as against it on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and we affirm.

The courts of this State may exercise personal jurisdiction over, inter alia, a foreign corporation that "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [1]); or commits a tortious act outside the State causing injury to person or property within the State if it "regularly does or solicits business [or] derives substantial revenue from goods used * * * in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [3] [i]), as to a cause of action arising from those acts. However, in their affidavits in support of the motion, Atlantic’s vice-president and its counsel stated that Atlantic conducted business solely in New Jersey. Since the burden of proving jurisdiction is on the party asserting it, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff, in the face of Atlantic’s allegations, to come forward with evidence to support the existence of a basis upon which to predicate the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Atlantic (see, Spectra Prods, v Indian Riv. Citrus Specialties, 144 AD2d 832) or to at least show that such evidence may exist (see, Glassman v Catli, 111 AD2d 744). The plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was properly granted. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur