You are here: / / NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL OR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A UK CORPORATION...
, ,

NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL OR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A UK CORPORATION WHICH ALLEGEDLY MANUFACTURED A DEFECTIVE PART OF AN EXCAVATOR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Miller defendants, a UK corporation, were not amenable to general or long-arm jurisdiction in New York. Plaintiff alleged a part (a coupler) made by Miller failed causing an excavator bucket to detach and fall:

General jurisdiction exists over a corporate entity only in the state(s) in which it is incorporated and has its principal place of business … . * * *

Defendants have also failed to establish specific jurisdiction over the Miller parties pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), CPLR 302 (a)(3)(i) or CPLR 302 (a)(3)(ii). Although the Miller parties might have placed the coupler involved in plaintiff’s accident into the stream of commerce, and while they tout having a global customer base and business model, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that “the ‘fortuitous circumstance’ that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of [the] defendant,” or “‘the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum[,]’ cannot establish the requisite connection between [the] defendant and the forum” to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction … . Cruz v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06546, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: The ‘fortuitous circumstance’ that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of [the] defendant,” or “‘the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum[,]’ cannot establish the requisite connection between [the] defendant and the forum” to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. Here New York did not have general or long-arm jurisdiction over a UK corporation which manufactured a part on an excavator which allegedly failed causing the excavator bucket to detach.

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT NECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).
HANDCUFFING THE DEFENDANT PENDING IDENTIFICATION BY THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER AMOUNTED AN ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTEMPT AND GAG ORDERS ISSUED IN THIS TRIAL WHERE FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE DEFENDANT ARE NOT APPROPRIATELY CHALLENGED BY A DEMAND FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW; MOTIONS TO VACATE THE ORDERS SHOULD BE MADE; ANY DENIAL OF THE MOTIONS COULD THEN BE APPEALED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT ADMIT HE INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME IN THE BUILDING HE ENTERED AND REMAINED UNLAWFULLY; THEREFORE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF A STAY-AWAY ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO MENTION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE ON THE VERDICT SHEET WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY AN OBJECTION AND THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE APPELLATE JURISDICTION WILL NOT BE INVOKED WHERE THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT (FIRST DEPT).
SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING.
A SAFE ON A HIGH SHELF IN A HOTEL ROOM FELL ON PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT HOTEL DID NOT ADDRESS WHEN THE SAFE WAS LAST INSPECTED; THEREFORE THE HOTEL DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SAFE (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, DEFENDANT EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-ORAL-CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BY DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE ON THE ORAL MODIFICATION (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

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SUPPORT POLE FOR THE SIDEWALK TENT... DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE...