Tebedo v. Nye
New York Supreme Court
45 Misc. 2d 222, 256 N.Y.S.2d 235 (1965)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Edward Tebedo (plaintiff) owned property in New York. According to Tebedo, multiple owners of a 30-foot strip of land (strip) that was adjacent to Tebedo’s property promised to convey the strip to Tebedo but never did so. The McLaughlins (defendants) acquired the strip from Ralph Nye (defendant), allegedly with the understanding that the McLaughlins would convey the strip to Tebedo. The McLaughlins sold the strip to the Barrows (defendants) in 1959 with the alleged understanding and agreement that the strip would be conveyed to Tebedo, but, again, it was not. Upon selling their property, the McLaughlins left New York for Florida, after which the McLaughlins did not own any New York property. Tebedo sued Nye, the Barrows, and the McLaughlins, seeking an order requiring that the strip be conveyed to Tebedo or, in the alternative, that Tebedo be awarded damages based on improvements Tebedo made to the strip in reliance on the alleged promises that the strip would be conveyed to him. The McLaughlins moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. Tebedo responded that jurisdiction was proper under New York’s long-arm statute, Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) §302(a)(3), which provided for personal jurisdiction for claims that arose from the ownership, use, or possession of New York realty.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simons, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
