You are here: / / Business Connections to New York Insufficient to Confer Jurisdiction Under...
,

Business Connections to New York Insufficient to Confer Jurisdiction Under CPLR 301 or 302, Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the defendants-respondents were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the court’s lack of jurisdiction over a foreign corporation and individual non-domiciliary (insufficient business connection with New York). The court explained the business-related jurisdiction requirements under CPLR 301 and 302:

“Jurisdiction under CPLR 301 may be acquired over a foreign corporation only if that corporation does business here not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity’ so as to warrant a finding of its presence’ in this jurisdiction” … . Furthermore, “[a]n individual cannot be subject to jurisdiction under CPLR 301 unless he [or she] is doing business in New York as an individual rather than on behalf of a corporation” … . Here, the respondents were not doing business in this State … .

Pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), “a court 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]). “Whether a defendant has transacted business within New York is determined under the totality of the circumstances, and rests on whether the defendant, by some act or acts, has purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York]”‘ … . “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'” … . “CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdiction is proper 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'” … .

Here, the respondents established, prima facie, that they did not conduct any purposeful activities in New York which bore a substantial relationship to the subject matter of this action, so as to avail themselves of the benefits and protections of this State’s laws. Okeke v Momah, 2015 NY Slip Op 07252, 2nd Dept 10-7-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
“General Supervisory Authority” Over Work Not Sufficient to Impose Liability Under the Labor Law
MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Despite Absence of Written Notice of the Dangerous Condition, There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Village Created the Dangerous Condition by Its Snow-Removal/Whether the Condition Was Open and Obvious Speaks Only to Comparative Negligence
THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS; THE AFFIFAVITS WERE NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIAL FACT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WAS NOT “A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STAYED THE ENFORCEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5240 BASED ON COUNTERCLAIMS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANTS, ACTION ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS COULD PROCEED DESPITE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLEA (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Elements of Causes of Action for (1) Misappropriation of (a) Trade Secrets,... In Opposing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File a Note of Issue,...