You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL...
, , , , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ONLY CONNECTION TO THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK WAS HIS SALARY; THEREFORE THE CORPORATION’S NEW YORK CONTACTS COULD NOT BE IMPUTED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Sprinkle’s) motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted, noting that Sprinkle’s only connection with the corporation alleged to have breached the contract was his salary. The corporation’s contacts with New York could not, therefore, be imputed to Sprinkle:

The complaint fails to state a cause of action as against Sprinkle for tortious interference with contract, because there is no allegation that Sprinkle personally benefitted from the corporations’ alleged breach of contract; the only benefit he is alleged to have received is his salary from the corporations … .

Plaintiff failed to make a sufficient start on a showing of jurisdiction over Sprinkle to entitle it to jurisdictional discovery … . Because the conduct complained of involved the diversion of funds from outside New York to recipients outside New York, the “critical events,” and thus the situs of injury, were not in New York … . Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that Sprinkle received substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce (see CPLR 302[a][3][ii]). Because Sprinkle did not personally benefit from the breach of contract, the corporations’ contacts with New York cannot be imputed to him … .

Nor can Sprinkle be said to have “reasonably expected” his actions to have consequences in New York … as he neither did anything to avail himself of New York nor took any steps to project himself into New York. Given that Sprinkle had no contact with New York and did not purposefully avail himself of New York, the constitutional guarantee of due process bars New York courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over him. Greenbacker Residential Solar LLC v OneRoof Energy, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05487, First Dept 7-9-19

 

You might also like
NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE.
Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Can Apply to an Elevator Maintenance Company Even Where there Is No Proof the Company Had Actual or Constructive Notice of Elevator Misleveling
Theories Not Included in Notice of Claim Precluded
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PARKED TRUCK WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A BICYCLIST’S INJURIES.
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL WAS MADE RIGHT BEFORE JURY SELECTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT AN INQUIRY INTO THE REASON FOR IT (FIRST DEPT).
CHILD’S ATTORNEY HAD STANDING TO OBJECT TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S CHILD SUPPORT RULINGS, AN ADOPTIVE SUBSIDY IS A RESOURCE OF THE ADOPTED CHILD AND SHOULD BE PAID TO THE ADOPTIVE MOTHER ON THE CHILD’S BEHALF UNTIL THE CHILD TURNS 21, EVEN THOUGH MOTHER NO LONGER CARES FOR THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).
Admission Into Evidence of Nontestifying Codefendant’s Grand Jury Testimony Violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION DEFENDANT SUPERVISOR CONDITIONED HIS SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AT WORK ON HER COMPLIANCE WITH HIS DEMANDS FOR SEX SUPPORTED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES RE: DEFENDANT SUPERVISOR AND DEFENDANT EMPLOYER (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

FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, AS ALLEGED, IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACTION FOR BREACH... PASSING REFERENCE IN A CONTRACT TO A ‘TERMS AND CONDITIONS’ PAGE...