finding a defamation action sufficiently related to New York where all significant actions culminating in publication of defamatory book occurred in state and noting that “[tjhere is no requirement that jurisdiction be grounded upon either the final act or the ultimate act causing the injury. It is sufficient if the cause of action is related to and grows out of the transaction of business in New York.”
How later courts described this case
- finding a defamation action sufficiently related to New York where all significant actions culminating in publication of defamatory book occurred in state and noting that “[tjhere is no requirement that jurisdiction be grounded upon either the final act or the ultimate act causing the injury. It is sufficient if the cause of action is related to and grows out of the transaction of business in New York.”
- concluding that the publication of an 2 allegedly defamatory book for which "virtually all the work 3 attendant upon publication" had occurred in New York, including 4 the research for it and the negotiations and execution of the 5 contract with the publisher, constituted "transactions of 6 business" for the purposes of section 302(a)(1)
- concluding that the publication of an allegedly defamatory book for which “virtually all the work attendant upon publication” had occurred in New York, including the research for it and the negotiations and execution of the contract with the publisher, constituted “transactions of business” for the purposes of section 302(a)(1)
- finding substantial relationship between allegedly defamatory book and defendant’s New York business transactions because “virtually all the work attendant upon publication of the book occurred in New York [;] [t]he book was in part researched in this State[;] ... negotiations with [the publisher] took place in New York; the contract with [the publisher] was executed in New York; [and] the book was printed in New York”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Nunez, J. P. (dissenting).
I dissent and would affirm. Justice Korn properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. This defamation action is specifically excluded from the long-arm statute which was not meant to confer jurisdiction to our courts in actions by a nonresident against a nonresident.
Kupferman, McNally and Eager, JJ., concur with Tilzer, J.; Nunez, J. P., dissents in an opinion.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 23, 1971, so far as appealed from, reversed, on the law, to the extent of denying the cross motion and reinstating the complaint as against defendant Irving. Defendant Irving is permitted to serve an answer within 10 days after service upon him by plaintiff of a copy of the order herein, with notice of entry thereon. Appellant shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal.