CHINESE NATIONAL NOT DOMICILED IN NEW YORK, NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
The Second Department determined the complaint against a Chinese national was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained the law re: (1) the burdens of proof for the motion to dismiss, (2) the procedure when discovery is required to determine jurisdiction, (3) the definition of “domicile” and (4) the nature of business transactions which will provide New York with jurisdiction:
… [T]he plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the defendant was domiciled in New York at the time the action was commenced in July 2013. Evidence of the defendant’s ownership of a cooperative apartment in Queens is, on its own, insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over him absent evidence of his intent to make the apartment his “fixed and permanent home” … . The record demonstrated that the defendant resided in Shanghai, China, while his wife and daughter resided in the cooperative apartment in Queens. It was undisputed that the defendant had not even visited New York since March 2013. * * *
The transaction of business is established where it is shown that a ” defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted'”… .
” Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails [himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” … . A single transaction in New York may suffice to invoke jurisdiction even if the defendant never enters the state, provided that the activity was purposeful and ” there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted'”… . Indeed, absent ” some articulable nexus'” between a defendant’s purposeful business activities in the state and the plaintiff’s claims, personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) may not be exercised … .
Here, the sole purposeful activity cited by the plaintiffs in support of their argument that the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) is the employment relationship between Crystal Window and the defendant. However, the alleged wrongdoing upon which the complaint primarily is based occurred during the defendant’s employment with Huai’an Crystal, a Chinese company, prior to any employment with Crystal Window. Chen v Guo Liang Lu, 2016 NY Slip Op 07290, 2nd Dept 10-9-16
CIVIL PROCEDURE (CHINESE NATIONAL NOT DOMICILED IN NEW YORK, NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION)/JURISDICTION (PERSONAL) (CHINESE NATIONAL NOT DOMICILED IN NEW YORK, NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION)