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
CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE LAND BEFORE IT WAS DESIGNATED PROTECTED WETLANDS WHICH COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED (SECOND DEPT)
THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS SET FORTH IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE UNTESTED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IT WAS REQUIRED TO VACATE THE CONVICTION; DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE REJECTED A PLEA OFFER WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO LIFE IN PRISON AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AFTER TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AFTER FINDING DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SECOND DEPT).
RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING LANDOWNER HAS NO DUTY TO MAINTAIN A TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CEMETERY’S APPLICATION FOR A USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CREMATORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BY THE ZONING BOARD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY, WITHOUT EVIDENCE FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHO MADE THE DRUG PURCHASES, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DARDEN HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (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

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...