You are here: / / ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT...

ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3O2 (a)(3)(ii) stems from tortious acts which occur in New York, not financial effects felt in New York, and due process requires that an out-of-state defendant have minimum contacts with New York. Neither requirement was met here:

A plaintiff relying on CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) must show that (1) the defendant committed a tortious act outside New York; (2) the cause of action arose from that act; (3) the tortious act caused an injury to a person or property in New York; (4) the defendant expected or should reasonably have expected the act to have consequences in New York; and (5) the defendant derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce … . In New York, “the situs of commercial injury is where the original critical events associated with the action or dispute took place, not where any financial loss or damages occurred” … .

Here, the “original critical events” giving rise to plaintiff’s injury were the 2012 and 2015 Transfers. As those transfers occurred outside of New York and did not involve New York assets, the situs of injury was not in New York… . That plaintiff felt economic injury in New York, alone, is an insufficient basis to confer jurisdiction. …

Furthermore, even if the elements of CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) have been met, asserting personal jurisdiction would not comport with due process … . To comport with due process, “[t]here must also be proof that the out-of-state defendant has the requisite minimum contacts’ with the forum state and that the prospect of defending a suit here comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,'” … . The “minimum contacts” requirement is satisfied where “a defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State’ are such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there'” … . Under the “effects test” theory of personal jurisdiction, where the conduct that forms the basis for the plaintiff’s claims takes place entirely out of forum, and the only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are the harmful effects suffered by the plaintiff, a court must inquire whether the defendant “expressly aimed” its conduct at the forum … . Here, defendants did not expressly aim their tortious conduct at New York, and the foreseeability that the alleged fraudulent conveyances would injure plaintiff in New York is insufficient … . Deutsche Bank AG v Vik, 2018 NY Slip Op 04958, First Dept 7-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 302  (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/PERSONAL JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CPLR 302, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/TORTIOUS ACTS (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/MINIMUM CONTACTS  (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/DUE PROCESS (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMININSTRATIVE CODE MAKES TENANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM SIDEWALKS, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DO SO; THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALSO MAKES PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL; THE LEASE SPECIFICALLY STATED DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING SNOW AND ICE FROM THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ONCE THE CITY TAX LIENS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED PAYMENT TO THE CITY, INSTEAD OF THE LIENHOLDER, IS NOT APPLIED TO THE DEBT (FIRST DEPT).
STANDING ON THE TOP STEP OF AN A FRAME LADDER WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FALL; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE-FORCE CASE SET ASIDE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO A $200,000 DAMAGES AWARD (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT.
COMMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY A JUROR DURING DELIBERATIONS EXPRESSING ETHNIC BIAS REQUIRED A HEARING AND FINDINGS WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE, WERE VIOLATED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE CONTROLLING STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE CITY CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR... ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION,...