You are here: / / NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER...
, , ,

NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, AND TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS IN AN ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, FRAUD AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined New York had jurisdiction over the defendant JUUL, the manufacture of electronic cigarettes, and two corporate officers involved JUUL’s marketing campaign in New York. The complaint alleged “causes of action pursuant to General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, for deceptive acts and practices and for false advertising, respectively; pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), for repeated and persistent fraud and illegal conduct in violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC § 45); and, for public nuisance.”:

… [T]he People submitted internal emails and reports demonstrating … that defendants traveled to New York City for investment meetings … ; that defendants personally attended JUUL’s launch party in New York City …, JUUL also sought to arrange in-person meetings between defendants and both “New York targets” and broadcast media organizations; and, that defendants and JUUL considered the New York City launch to have been a success.

… [D]efendants were involved in marketing strategy, which included … months of events in New York; identifying New York as the target of JUUL’s northeastern U.S. marketing efforts, at and after launch; advertising on billboards in Times Square; hosting in-store product samplings at New York vape shops and social events; and escalating marketing efforts in the New York City metropolitan area post-launch. After New York proved to be a substantial market for JUUL’s product, defendants went so far as to describe the efforts as “NYC takeover” and to declare that New York City users should be “the focus of [JUUL’s] branding/marketing.”

This evidence establishes that defendants conducted sufficient in-person activities within New York State related to the People’s claims against them in this action, and sufficiently supports the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) … . People v JUUL Labs, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00040, First Dept 1-5-22

Practice Point: Here New York demonstrated it had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state manufacturer of electronic cigarettes and two corporate officers involved in marketing the cigarettes in New York. The complaint alleged deceptive business practices, fraud and public nuisance.

 

You might also like
TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE.
Dismissal of Federal Action Precluded Related Action in State Court—Res Judicata, Privity under Res Judicata Doctrine, Effect of Initial Forum Choice, and “First-in-Time” Rule Discussed
DESTRUCTION OF BLOOD EVIDENCE IN FLOODING CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY DID NOT WARRANT AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION.
INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH REFERRED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ OPERATE A POWER BUGGY IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CLAIM, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A POWER BUGGY OPERATED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ (FIRST DEPT).
Plea Colloquy of Co-Defendant Was Inadmissible Hearsay—Court’s Granting of Defendant’s Request to Have the Colloquy Read to the Jury Over Defense Counsel’s Objection Deprived Defendant of His Right To Counsel
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SELECTED UNSWORN JUROR COULD NOT RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT BECAUSE OF AN OUT-OF-TOWN MEETING ON THE DAY BEFORE THE TRIAL WAS LIKELY TO CONCLUDE, THE PEOPLE’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-TO-CURE PROVISION BEFORE TERMINATING IT; THE REASON FOR TERMINATION, FAULTY WORK, WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE NOTICE-TO-CURE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE LEVEL THREE STREET STOP WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE VAGUE DESCRIPTION OF A ROBBERY SUSPECT WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT MATCH; THAT THE DEFENDANT HID HIS FACE AND WALKED QUICKLY WHEN THE POLICE FOLLOWED HIM DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH THE REQUISITE REASONABLE SUSPICION (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

TO DEPRIVE A PLAINTIFF OF THE SIX-MONTH RECOMMENCEMENT BENEFIT OF CPLR 205(A)... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE...