You are here: / / Statutory and Due-Process Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over a Nondomiciliary...

Statutory and Due-Process Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over a Nondomiciliary Defendant Described

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant under the long-arm statute and under federal due process principles:

In deciding whether an action may be maintained in New York against a nondomiciliary defendant, the court must first determine whether jurisdiction exists under New York’s long-arm statute (see CPLR 302) based upon the defendant’s contacts with this state; and, if it does, the court then determines “whether the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process” … . The ultimate burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that such requirements have been met … .

Here, plaintiffs assert that defendant’s conduct falls within the provisions of CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii), which confers jurisdiction when a defendant commits a tortious act outside New York that causes injury to a person or property within the state and the defendant “expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce” … . *  *  *

Based on the record before us, we likewise find that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant is compatible with federal due process standards. Generally, “a State may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over non-domiciliary defendants, provided they had certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” … . The relevant inquiry is whether a defendant “purposefully avai[led] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … . Under the circumstances here, inasmuch as defendant targeted New York consumers through a network of distributors that rendered it likely that its products would be sold in New York, “it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in [this state] if its allegedly defective merchandise has . . . been the source of injury to [a New York resident]” … . Darrow v Hectronic Deutschland, 2014 NY Slip Op 05239, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT).
IN A DESIGN-BUILD TURNKEY PROJECT, A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE TURNKEY BUILDER IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DECEDENT’S WIFE IS A BORROWER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVERSE MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF DECEDENT’S WIFE IS A BORROWER SHE MAY REMAIN IN THE MORTGAGED PREMISES, IF NOT, FORECLOSURE CAN PROCEED.
Purchase Contract Properly Converted to a “Time Is of the Essence” Contract
DEFENSE COUNSEL APOLOGIZED TO COUNTY COURT AND INDICATED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S BEHAVIOR MAY HAVE CAUSED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE WITHDRAWN A MORE FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL AND SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REOFFER THE PRIOR PLEA DEAL (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY SERVICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT A PERSON UNDER ITS SUPERVISION AND CARE FROM HARMING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; PLAINTIFF WAS KIDNAPPED AND RAPED BY A PERSON WITH A VIOLENT PAST WHO WAS UNDER DEFENDANT’S CARE AND SUPERVISION (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, A NOVICE SKIER, WAS INJURED DURING A LESSON; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INSTRUCTOR UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK BY HAVING PLAINTIFF SKI DOWN AN INTERMEDIATE HILL WITHOUT ADEQUATE TRAINING (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED HIS CHAIR TO START TO TIP OVER BACKWARDS WHEN THE WHEELS CAUGHT IN THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE INCIDENT WAS NOT UNEXPECTED AND PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury... New York’s Seatbelt Defense Applies to Action Stemming from Pennsylvania...