Individual Defendants’ Ties to New York, Including Business Activities in New York, Were Not Sufficient to Afford New York Jurisdiction, Pursuant to CPLR 302, Over a Lawsuit Stemming from a Personal Injury in New Jersey—CPLR 301, Which Affords New York Courts Jurisdiction Over Corporations Doing Business in New York, Does Not Extend to Individuals Doing Business in New York

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s finding that New York courts had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s personal injury action.  Plaintiff was injured by an allegedly defective saw provided by the defendants while doing work for defendants at the defendants’ home in New Jersey.  Jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 was lacking because there was no real connection between the the defendants’ activities in New York (they ran a church in New York) and the personal injury action.  Jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 301 was lacking because CPLR 301 does not apply to individuals, as opposed to corporations, doing business in New York:

In order to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists under CPLR 302(a)(1), a court must determine (1) whether the defendant transacted business in New York and, if so, (2) whether the cause of action asserted arose from that transaction … .

The Court of Appeals has interpreted the second prong of the jurisdictional inquiry to require that, in light of all the circumstances, there must be an “articulable nexus” … , between a defendant’s in-state activity and the claim asserted … . Although “causation is not required,” the Court of Appeals has stated that “at a minimum [there must be] a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former” … . “[W]here at least one element arises from the New York contacts, the relationship between the business transaction and the claim asserted supports specific jurisdiction under the statute” … .

Here, the relationship between the causes of action asserted in the complaint and the [defendants’] activities within New York were too insubstantial to warrant a New York court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1). * * *

In contrast to the common-law approach to corporations, the common law, as developed through case law predating the enactment of CPLR 301, did not include any recognition of general jurisdiction over an individual based upon that individual’s cumulative business activities within the State … . Since the enactment of CPLR 301 did not expand the scope of the existing jurisdictional authority of the courts of the State of New York, that section does not permit the application of the “doing business” test to individual defendants … . Accordingly, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, since the [defendants] were served with process in New Jersey, the Supreme Court was not authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 301, based on their cumulative individual business activities within the State. Pichardo v Zayas, 2014 NY Slip Op 07639, 2nd Dept 11-12-14