You are here: / / NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A BAVARIAN STEM DONOR...

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A BAVARIAN STEM DONOR REGISTRY INVOLVED IN DECEDENT’S PHYSICIANS’ SEARCH FOR A BONE-MARROW MATCH TO TREAT LEUKEMIA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over BSB, a Bavarian stem donor registry:

BSB was contacted through a chain of interactions between donor registries that began with decedent’s New York physicians reaching out to the National Marrow Donor Program in Minnesota to find a match for decedent so that she could undergo a bone marrow transplant to treat her leukemia. When no match was found there, the search was expanded, including to Republic of German’s central registry, and ultimately a donor was located in the BSB registry. BSB did not engage in a regular course of conduct, nor did it purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within New York State … . Furthermore, BSB, a 20-employee not-for-profit organization, was reimbursed with a set sum by a German entity for providing the donation to decedent’s transplant center’s courier in Germany, and reimbursement was not contingent on decedent’s ability to pay, insurance, or the like. There is no evidence that BSB derived substantial revenue from the transaction or from New York, where it has no offices, employees, agents, marketing, registrations, or presence … . Even if the long-arm statute applied, BSB does not have the minimum contacts necessary such that it should have reasonably expected to be brought into court here … .Aloisio v New York-Presbyt./Weill Cornell Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 03205, First Dept 5-17-22

Practice Point: A Bavarian stem donor registry did not have sufficient contacts with New York to allow New York to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over the registry. The registry played a role in decedent’s physicians’ search for a bone-marrow match to treat decedent’s leukemia. The registry had no presence in New York and did not purposely conduct activities in New York. Even if the long-arm statute applied, the registry did not have the minimum contacts with New York required under a due-process analysis.

 

You might also like
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, THE NONRECOURSE CLAUSE PRECLUDED THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; PLAINTIFF HAD WON AN ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR OVER $200 MILLION AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION AFTER DEFENDANT FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL MISCALCULATED THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION, WHICH CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER WAS SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING THE FATHER’S CONTACT WITH HER AND THE CHILDREN; THE PROOF IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST MOTHER DID NOT MATCH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION; THE JUDGE EFFECTIVELY AMENDED THE PETITION BY IMPROPERLY CONFORMING THE PETITION TO SERIOUSLY CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY PROOF; MOTHER WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY ADDRESS THE “AMENDED” PETITION; NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
Allowing Testimony that Defendant’s Name Was Mentioned in an Out-of-Court Conversation About the Underlying Assault Was (Harmless) Error/The Confrontation Clause Was Not Implicated Because the Hearsay Was Not Testimonial/Admission of the Hearsay Was Not Justified as “Completing the Narrative” or “Preventing Jury Confusion”
WHERE A STATUTE, HERE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 40-B, PRESCRIBES A MONETARY REMEDY, AN INJUNCTION IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO 60 DAYS IN JAIL AND FIVE YEARS PROBATION FOR STEALING A BREAKFAST SANDWICH FROM A RESTAURANT; EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THE SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE.
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM TWO INCIDENTS: A FORM FELL OFF A WALL ONTO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE GRINDER (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

DESPITE THE APPARENT FAILURE TO PRESERVE A VIDEO OF A MEETING DURING WHICH PETITIONER... PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN A RELEASE BY FRAUD,...