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
ALTHOUGH MOTHER DID NOT APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED CONFERENCE AND DID NOT HAVE A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING, SHE WAS NOT AWARE FINDINGS OF FACT WOULD BE MADE IN HER ABSENCE; DEFAULT ORDER VACATED ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).
THE EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN ATTORNEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EMAIL EXCHANGES EVINCED AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Employer Explained
THE MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPEAL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS NEVER INTERPOSED AN ANSWER SO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY DENIED, MATTER REMITTED SO PLAINTIFF CAN MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UTILITY AFTER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINED PLAINTIFF’S ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN PROPERLY CUT OFF BY THE UTILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD REPLACED THE METER (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH COUNTY COURT ISSUED, ENTERED AND FILED A DECISION ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE INDICATING THE DECISION WAS A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER; IN ADDITION, THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT DID NOT INCLUDE “SO ORDERED” LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THE COURT AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE SUBCONTRACT EXPIRED BEFORE SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT; THE TERMS OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND CONFLICTED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE STATE FINANCE LAW CONTROLS (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...