You are here: / / Plaintiff Sufficiently Demonstrated the Possibility of Long-Arm Jurisdiction...

Plaintiff Sufficiently Demonstrated the Possibility of Long-Arm Jurisdiction to Warrant Discovery

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed an attorney’s suit for fees on lack-of-personal-jurisdiction grounds. The underlying action was brought by a New York resident (Swanson) injured in Massachusetts.  In explaining the general principles of long-arm jurisdiction, the court noted that some discovery may be necessary to determine the jurisdiction issue:

New York courts “may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [1]). Inasmuch as CPLR 302 (a) (1) is a “single act statute . . . proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . With respect to the requirement of a substantial relationship, “the existence of some articulable nexus between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon” is “[e]ssential to the maintenance of a suit against a non-domiciliary under CPLR 302 [(a) (1)]” … . Although plaintiff bears the burden of proof as the party seeking to assert jurisdiction, that burden “does not entail making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction; rather, plaintiff need only demonstrate that it made a ‘sufficient start’ to warrant further discovery” … . In that regard, we note that the issue of whether long-arm jurisdiction exists often presents complex questions; “[d]iscovery is, therefore, desirable, [*3]indeed may be essential, and should quite probably lead to a more accurate judgment than one made solely on the basis of inconclusive preliminary affidavits” … .

In our view, plaintiff has made a “sufficient start” and demonstrated that additional facts establishing personal jurisdiction “may exist” but are within defendants’ exclusive control … . Specifically, plaintiff raised questions of fact regarding whether defendants interjected themselves into Swanson’s New York workers’ compensation proceeding, ultimately negotiating the workers’ compensation lien on the settlement proceeds from Swanson’s personal injury action. Gottlieb v Merrigan, 2014 NY Slip Op 05011, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

You might also like
BOTH PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER AND THE DRIVER OF THE CAR WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S BUS WERE DEEMED COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN A RELATED PROCEEDING; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).
Carrier’s Video Surveillance of Employee Disallowed Because It Was Not Disclosed
ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS THE TARGET OF A STING WHERE THE INVESTIGATOR POSED AS THE STEPFATHER OF A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL WITH WHOM THE DEFENDANT WAS INVITED TO HAVE SEX; WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR SUMMONED THE STEPDAUGHTER TO MEET THE DEFENDANT, HE GOT UP AND WALKED AWAY; THE ATTEMPTED RAPE, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
THE OPINION EVIDENCE THAT CLAIMANT’S PRE-EXISTING HEART CONDITION WAS A HINDRANCE TO HER EMPLOYABILITY WAS INSUFFICIENT, THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER, THEREFORE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND (THIRD DEPT).
NONWORKING CLAIMANT SUBJECT TO THE 75% CAP ON WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO NO LESS THAN 25% LOSS OF WAGE- EARNING CAPACITY FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE DURATION OF BENEFITS; HERE A 15% LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY UPHELD.
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED A LEVEL TWO RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE; REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Adverse Possession Criteria Explained Plaintiffs Could Not Demonstrate the Alleged Malpractice Was Proximate Cause...