Gaines Service Leasing Corp. v. Ashkenazy, No. 85-CV-4398(JBW).
Cited authorities 12 Cited in 7 Precedent Map Related
Court United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
Writing for the Court Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York City by John M. Schwartz, for defendant Severyn Ashkenazy
Citation 635 F. Supp. 805
Parties GAINES SERVICE LEASING CORP., Plaintiff, v. Severyn ASHKENAZY, Variety Car Rental Co., A California Corporation and Royal Limousine service inc., a California Corporation d/b/a Variety Car Rental Co., a California General Partnership, Ernest E. Simms and Showcase Rental Cars Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants.
Docket Number No. 85-CV-4398(JBW).
Decision Date 30 May 1986
635 F. Supp. 805
GAINES SERVICE LEASING CORP., Plaintiff,
Severyn ASHKENAZY, Variety Car Rental Co., A California Corporation and Royal Limousine service inc., a California Corporation d/b/a Variety Car Rental Co., a California General Partnership, Ernest E. Simms and Showcase Rental Cars Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants.
No. 85-CV-4398(JBW).
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
Neil Friedkin, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiff.
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York City by John M. Schwartz, for defendant Severyn Ashkenazy.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WEINSTEIN, Chief Judge:
Severyn Ashkenazy moves to set aside a default entry and to dismiss the action against him on the ground that this court lacks a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
I. FACTS
Plaintiff Gaines Service Leasing Corp., a New York corporation, entered into agreements with a number of California-based companies to supply leased automobiles in California. The contracts were negotiated in New York. They contained a clause stating that New York law applied, that any disputes were to be adjudicated in New York courts, and that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was waived.
The individual defendant Severyn Ashkenazy, a resident of California, did not come to New York, and no facts were supplied which would permit piercing of the corporate veil to make him personally responsible for the actions of the corporation. He did sign in California a guarantee of performance for each contract.
The question before us is whether Ashkenazy's signing of those guarantees constitutes a basis for the application of personal jurisdiction by the New York courts. He was served in California. No issue of lack of proper service has been raised.
II. CONFLICT OF LAWS
On oral argument the court pointed out the possible conflict of laws problem: to wit, did New York or California contract law control interpretation of the guarantee clause. The parties declined to address the issue of whether California law should apply to interpretation of the guarantee. All of the cases cited by them in their briefs deal with New York law. In effect the parties have agreed that the law of New York applies. See Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp., 27 N.Y.2d 270, 277, 317 N.Y.S.2d 315, 265 N.E.2d 739 (1970). Accordingly, since there is no manifest injustice, we look only to New York law, the law of this forum.
III. NEW YORK LONG-ARM JURISDICTION
The first possible predicate for an assertion of jurisdiction is found in New York's long-arm statute. It provides in pertinent part: "A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary ... who ... transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state...." CPLR § 302(a)(1). The clause granting jurisdiction over anyone who "contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state" was added in 1979 to broaden the scope of the long-arm statute. The question posed is whether guaranteeing payments to a New York corporation constitutes
a contract to provide "services" in New York
The leases do not specify where payment is to be made. The general rule, however, "is that the debtor must seek the creditor and make tender to him wherever he...
7 practice notes
A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra Bank, No. 988
United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
...Manufacturers Hanover Leasing Corp. v. Ace Drilling Co., 720 F.Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Gaines Serv. Leasing Corp. v. Ashkenazy, 635 F.Supp. 805 (E.D.N.Y.1986); Chemco Int'l Leasing, Inc. v. Meridian Engineering, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 539 We predict that the New York Court of Appeals would cons......
Outokumpu Engineering Enterprises, Inc. v. Kvaerner EnviroPower, Inc., No. 95C-12-080-JOH
Superior Court of Delaware
...general rule that a debtor must tender to the creditor where it can find him, e.g., Gaines Serv. Leasing Corp. v. Ashkenazy, E.D.N.Y., 635 F.Supp. 805, 807 (1986), as authority for the distinct proposition that, where a payment site is not named in a guarantee agreement, the default rule fa......
Manufacturers Hanover Leasing v. Ace Drilling Co., No. 86 Civ. 9347(MP).
United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
...that making a guarantee of payment to New York is "supplying goods or services" in the state. Gaines Service Leasing Corp. v. Ashkenazy, 635 F.Supp. 805 (E.D.N.Y.1986); Chemco International Leasing, Inc. v. Meridian Engineering, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y.1984); Fashion Tanning Co. v. S......
LONE STAR INDUSTRIES v. CHIEFTAIN CEMENT, No. 91-CV-609C.
United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
...e.g., Manufacturers Hanover Leasing v. Ace Drilling Co., 720 F.Supp. 48, 49 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Gaines Service Leasing Corp. v. Ashkenazy, 635 F.Supp. 805 (E.D.N.Y.1986). The first paragraph of the guaranty provides that the individual defendants agreed to pay virtually all of Chieftain's debts......