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.
-vs- Index #H-2244
SYNTEX LABORATORIES, INC., a
Corporation; SYNTEX CORPORATION,
MISERENDINO, KRULL & FOLEY
(Paul A. Foley, Esq. of
Counsel) for Plaintiffs
LESTER, SCHWAB, KATZ &
DWYER (Jennifer E. Beinstock,
Esq. of Counsel) for
DECISION AND ORDER
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
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
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
PS-signed & sent out 9/22 Justice of Supreme Court