You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS T...

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION.

The First Department, over a substantial partial dissent, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the transaction of business in New York by agents of the defendant. Therefore, New York could not exercise long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant and defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) a New York court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary if the nondomiciliary has purposefully transacted business within the state and there is “a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . “Purposeful activities are volitional acts by which the non-domiciliary avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … . “More than limited contacts are required for purposeful activities sufficient to establish that the non-domiciliary transacted business in New York” … . * * *

To establish that a defendant acted through an agent, a plaintiff must “convince the court that [the New York actors] engaged in purposeful activities in this State in relation to [the] transaction for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of [the defendant] and that [the defendant] exercised some control over [the New York actors]” … . “[T]]o make a prima facie showing of control, a plaintiff’s allegations must sufficiently detail the defendant’s conduct so as to persuade a court that the defendant was a primary actor’ in the specific matter in question; control cannot be shown based merely upon a defendant’s title or position within the corporation, or upon conclusory allegations that the defendant controls the corporation” … . Coast to Coast Energy, Inc. v Gasarch, 2017 NY Slip Op 00532, 1st Dept 1-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)/JURISDICTION (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)/AGENTS (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)/TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT EXPERT OPINION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION HE INHALED SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF ASBESTOS TO HAVE CAUSED HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Student Who Had Been Expelled Could Bring Plenary Complaint Against School, in Addition to an Article 78 Proceeding
POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE LANDLORD’S SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT BECAUSE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROHIBITED BRINGING THE ACTION IN CIVIL COURT; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR BEFORE AND DURING THE TRAFFIC STOP DID NOT CREATE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” THE DEFENDANT WAS ARMED; THE FRISK AND SEIZURE OF SMALL PACKETS OF PCP FROM DEFENDANT’S SOCK WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint Should Have Been Denied—Question of Fact Re: Whether Spanish Document Was a Judgment
DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HIS ANSWER TO ASSERT A GRAVES AMENDMENT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (AVAILABLE TO THE LESSOR OF A VEHICLE); PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE LATENESS OF THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE (ROSNER) WHICH WERE NOT DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ROSNER’S EMPLOYMENT OR TO FURTHER TOMS’ BUSINESS (FIRST 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

PLAINTIFF, WHICH ULTIMATELY WON THE PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT, ALLEGED MALPRACTICE... NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY BETWEEN LAW SCHOOL AND AN ALLEGED DIPLOMA MILL, DECLARATORY...