You are here: / / DEFENDANTS, OPERATORS OF A VIRGINIA HOTEL WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN...

DEFENDANTS, OPERATORS OF A VIRGINIA HOTEL WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A SHOWER, DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF BUSINESS TIES TO NEW YORK, THE FACT THAT NEW YORKERS CAN MAKE RESERVATIONS THROUGH A WEBSITE IS NOT ENOUGH.

The Second Department determined defendants’ hotel’s motion to dismiss based upon the lack of business ties to New York was properly granted. Plaintiff was injured in a shower in the hotel, which is located in Virginia. The defendants demonstrated they did not do business in New York. The fact that reservations could be made through a website (accessed in New York) was not enough. There was no showing the injury was linked to the use of the website:

… [T]he plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in New York. Moreover, accepting as true the plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants were involved in maintaining or operating a website that permitted consumers in New York to make reservations at the subject hotel in Virginia, they failed to make a prima facie showing that there was a substantial relationship between the causes of action asserted in the complaint and any alleged transaction of business through that website … .

The plaintiffs also failed to make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists under CPLR 302(a)(4) based on ownership, use, or possession of any real property within the state … .

Furthermore, contrary to their contention, the plaintiffs have not made ” a sufficient start'” to warrant holding this branch of the defendants’ motion in abeyance while discovery is conducted on the issue of jurisdiction … . The plaintiffs have not alleged facts which would support personal jurisdiction under either CPLR 302(a)(1) or CPLR 302(a)(4), and thus have failed to indicate how further discovery might lead to evidence showing that personal jurisdiction exists here … . Leuthner v Homewood Suites by Hilton, 2017 NY Slip Op 05212, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

You might also like
THE SOLE MEMBER OF AN LLC WHICH OWNS THE PROPERTY HAS AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY; AN INSURER WHICH ACCEPTS PAYMENT ON A POLICY AFTER LEARNING OF THE INSURED’S ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS WAIVES THE RIGHT TO RESCIND THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE OFFICER’S SPECIFIC CONDUCT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE ORDINARY RULES OF THE ROAD PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE ORDINARY RULES OF NEGLIGENCE; THE MUNICIPALITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).
BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE INSURER.
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED; THE DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY BY PARTICIPATING IN THE LITIGATION FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police Accompanied a Parole Officer for the Express Purpose of Investigating a Burglary—Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL HAD NOTIFIED ALL PARTIES HE WAS NO LONGER...