STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF CHAUTAUQUA


 

BRUCE BENSON, Individually and

as Parent and Natural Guardian

OF KINSEY L. BENSON AND KARA M.

BENSON, Infants,


Plaintiffs,


-vs- Index #H-2244


SYNTEX LABORATORIES, INC., a

Corporation; SYNTEX CORPORATION,

a corporation,


Defendants.


 



MISERENDINO, KRULL & FOLEY

(Paul A. Foley, Esq. of

Counsel) for Plaintiffs



LESTER, SCHWAB, KATZ &

DWYER (Jennifer E. Beinstock,

Esq. of Counsel) for

Defendants



DECISION AND ORDER



GERACE, J.


This Court reserved decision pending a hearing pursuant to its April 27, 1994 decision to add as a defendant, Syntex Corporation.


Plaintiff made a motion to amend the complaint to add Syntex Corporation ("Corporation"), a Panamanian Corporation with its sole U.S. office in Palo Alto, California. The Corporation challenged jurisdiction, claiming it could not be reached by New York's long arm statute.


In its April 27, 1994 Decision and Order, this Court stated:

"The decision to this point is predicated on

the facts in the Lawrence Clark affidavit and

the testimony and documents involved in the

Alabama cases. Although that testimony and

documents could not be introduced at trial here

without more, they do create a legitimate basis

for the conclusions drawn by this Court. Thus,

plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case of

jurisdiction under the standards set by BEACON

ENTERPRISES, INC. V. MENZIES, and HOFFRITZ FOR

CULTERY, INC., supra.


Nevertheless, the affidavits of Jennifer E.

Bienstock, Esq. and Carol J. Gillespie, Corporate

Secretary of Corporation, and the recent decision

of Fourth Department SCHULTZ V. MARY KAY HYMAN,

ETAL, 607 NYS2d 824, decided February 4th, prompt

this Court, pursuant to CPLR 2218, to direct a

separate trial of the issue of personal jurisdiction

of Corporation.


Counsel are directed to consider a stipulation of

facts on which there is no dispute, and present a

proposed scheduling order for the trial to the

Court within 30 days of receipt of this Decision

and Order."

 

Thereafter, the parties stipulated:

"Counsel for plaintiff and for defendant hereby

stipulate that the court may consider, for the

sole purpose of determining jurisdiction over

Syntex Corporation, those documents submitted on

behalf of each party directed to that issue.

Counsel for both parties further stipulate that

they request no further hearing on the issue and

agree that the court may rule on the basis of the

documents before it.

Stipulated this 21st day of June, 1994.

/s/ Lawrence B. Clark"


After reviewing its earlier decision, and all papers submitted to the Court on the Motion, the Court hereby grants the motion of plaintiff to add Syntex Corporation as a party defendant.


The April 27th, 1994, decision is incorporated herein as the of Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of this Court.


This is the Decision and Order of this Court. No further Order shall be necessary.


Dated: September 22, 1994

Mayville, New York



 

JOSEPH GERACE

PS-signed & sent out 9/22 Justice of Supreme Court