You are here: / / Plaintiff Did Not Sufficiently Allege Colorado Defendant Had Purposefully...

Plaintiff Did Not Sufficiently Allege Colorado Defendant Had Purposefully Transacted Business In New York—Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the Colorado defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiff requested a loan from her uncle (the defendant), a Colorado resident. After her uncle refused, plaintiff brought this action for prima facie tort and slander based upon her communications with the defendant.  The Second Department found that plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged that defendant “purposefully transacted business” within New York:

A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who “transacts any business within the state” (CPLR 302[a][1]). Generally, a nondomiciliary will be deemed to be subject to the jurisdiction of a New York court pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) if he or she has “engaged in some purposeful activity within the State and there is a substantial relationship’ between this activity and the plaintiff’s cause of action” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” … .

Although the ultimate burden of proof regarding personal jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff, to defeat a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion to dismiss a complaint, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court … . Here, accepting as true the allegations set forth in the complaint and in the plaintiff’s opposition papers, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference … , the plaintiff failed to meet her prima facie burden. The nature and quality of the defendant’s alleged contacts with New York do not demonstrate that he purposefully transacted business within this state … . Whitcraft v Runyon, 2014 NY Slip Op 08634, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

You might also like
HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER TO POST A BOND, EVEN THOUGH THE BOND REQUIREMENT WAS LATER ELIMINATED ON APPEAL, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF PRESENTED CREDIBLE EVIDENCE HE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE BOND WHICH IS A DEFENSE TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT (SECOND DEPT).
Numerous Core Issues Discussed in Complicated Case Stemming from Mold in a Complex of Apartments Which Necessitated Termination of All the Leases
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK.
Breach of Contract Action Against School District Untimely—Notice of Claim Required by Education Law 3813 Not Filed Within Three Months of the Accrual of the Claim
THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Parents of Children in Public Schools Had Standing to Seek Court Review of the SUNY Trustees’ Authorization of Charter Schools—The Authorization Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious or an Abuse of Discretion

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Motion to Strike Errata Sheet “Correcting” Substantive Discrepancies... Doctrine of Res Judicata Did Not Preclude Lawsuit Against Defendant Building...