You are here: / / GOODYEAR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT AFFILIATIONS WITH NEW...
, , ,

GOODYEAR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT AFFILIATIONS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS TIRE-MALFUNCTION OUT-OF-STATE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Goodyear’s motion to dismiss the products liability complaint for lack of jurisdiction should have been granted. Plaintiff, a New York resident, was injured when a tire manufactured by Goodyear allegedly malfunctioned causing the car to overturn in Virginia. The Second Department held that plaintiff did not rebut Goodyear’s argument that it did not have significant affiliations with New York and noted that a corporation’s registration with the New York State Department of State does not confer jurisdiction on New York:

“While the ultimate burden of proof rests with the party asserting jurisdiction, the plaintiffs, in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” … . “General jurisdiction in New York is provided for in CPLR 301, which allows a court to exercise such jurisdiction over persons, property, or status as might have been exercised heretofore'”… . A court may exercise general jurisdiction over foreign corporations “when their affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State” … .

Here, in opposition to Goodyear’s motion, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over Goodyear existed under CPLR 301. The plaintiff did not rebut the evidence submitted by Goodyear showing that Goodyear’s affiliations with New York are not so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home here … . Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “a corporate defendant’s registration to do business in New York and designation of the Secretary of State to accept service of process in New York does not constitute consent by the corporation to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation’s affiliations with New York” … . Aybar v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06584, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

You might also like
THE ONE-YEAR-AND-NINETY-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR A SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT IN GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-I(1)(C) IS SUBJECT TO THE INFANCY TOLL IN CPLR 208 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED WITHIN THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S CONTRACT BUT DID NOT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS RELATIONS OR ENGAGE IN UNFAIR COMPETITION; THE ELEMENTS OF THE THREE CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Cause of Action Accruing Outside New York Brought by a Nonresident Deemed Untimely—Relevant Law Explained
SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT.
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 WHICH REQUIRES THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO USE SPECIFIC TYPE SIZES AND A PAPER-COLOR DIFFERENT FROM THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
STATEMENTS MADE BY ATTORNEY IN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
THE FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINANT CONSENTED TO LYING DOWN IN BED WITH PETITIONER FOR THE NIGHT BUT DID NOT CONSENT TO HAVING SEX WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ARREARS... THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A DOCTOR ORDERED THE RESTRAINT...