, , , , , , , ,



“Jurisdiction under CPLR 301 may be acquired over a foreign corporation [or other business entity] only if that corporation [or entity] does business here not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity’ so as to warrant a finding of its presence’ in this jurisdiction” (Sedig v Okemo Mtn., 204 AD2d 709, 710 [some internal quotation marks omitted].  Moreover, “[a]n individual cannot be subject to jurisdiction under CPLR 301 unless he is doing business in New York as an individual rather than on behalf of a corporation”.

Under CPLR 302(a)(1), “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (id.).

“CPLR 302(a) is a single act statute [and] . . . proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted'” (Kimco Exch. Place Corp. v Thomas Benz, Inc., 34 AD3d 433, 434, quoting Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 NY3d 65, 71, cert denied 549 US 1095). “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” (Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380, quoting McKee Elec. Co. v Rauland-Borg Corp., 20 NY2d 377, 382).

“While the ultimate burden of proof rests with the party asserting jurisdiction . . ., the plaintiff[ ], in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant[s] w[ere] subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” (Cornely v Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC, 44 AD3d 986, 986 [citation omitted]; see Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 55 AD3d 793, 794; Alden Personnel, Inc. v David, 38 AD3d 697, 698).

When opposing a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction is necessary, plaintiffs need not make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, but instead “need only demonstrate that facts may exist’ to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant” (Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi, 19 AD3d 407, 407-408, quoting CPLR 3211[d]; see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467). If “it appear[s] from affidavits submitted in opposition to [the] motion . . . that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated,” a court may, in the exercise of its discretion, postpone resolution of the issue of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 3211[d]; see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d at 467; Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi, 19 AD3d at 407-408).


ATTORNEY ADVERTISING: Information herein and is not intended to be, legal advice. This sample legal document is provided as part of a free public educational service by Zachary Irtaza Riyaz, Esq., attorney at law in the State of New York (Westhampton – Tel. 516-234-0348), for reference only. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE ABOUT A SPECIFIC LEGAL PROBLEM, NOR DOES IT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. Due to the importance of the individual facts of every case, the generalizations I make may not necessarily be applicable to any particular case. Statutes and codes such as Domestic Relations Law (DRL)are frequently amended and may affect the validity of the above legal document and no representation is made that the above sample is going to be enforceable in the future.Changes in the law could at any time make parts of this web site content obsolete. Updated statutes and codes may be available at the New York State Legislature Website. No statute or sample legal document should be relied on without understanding controlling case law which may further interpret it. THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF LEGAL ADVICE IS REQUIRED THE SERVICES OF A COMPETENT ATTORNEY WILL BE CONSULTED.