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
DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ARE NOT PENALTIES, INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE FOR PENALTIES DID NOT APPLY.
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON THE CONDITION OF THE HOME (FIRST DEPT),
EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED; NOTICES OF MANDATORY MEETINGS REGARDING WORK-REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DID NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GROSS NEGLIGENCE MIGHT OVERCOME A CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION ON LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT).
AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Application of Equitable Estoppel to Late Disclaimer of Coverage

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

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...