CPLR § 302 Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
(a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction
(1) transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state
Millennium Import, LLC v Reed Smith LLP, 2009 NY Slip Op 05175 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)
While third-party defendants were retained in California by a
non-New York plaintiff with respect to a California action, in
conducting their representation of plaintiff they had contacts with
this State of sufficient quantity and quality to confer jurisdiction
over them (see CPLR 302[a][1]; Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380 [2007]; Scheuer v Schwartz, 42 AD3d 314
[2007]). The record demonstrates that third—party defendants engaged in
extensive communications with New York counsel, both outside
(defendants/third-party plaintiffs) and in-house, of an entity related
to plaintiff, referred to as LVMH, which was acting on plaintiff's
behalf. Third-party defendants related every aspect of the California
litigation to the New York attorneys in detail and sought input from
all counsel. The memorandum prepared by third-party defendants
analyzing the underlying claim against plaintiff and recommending
action to be taken by plaintiff was addressed to LVMH's counsel and an
LVMH employee and cited previous discussions among them. In addition,
the individual third-party defendant made at least three trips to New
York in connection with the representation (see e.g. L & R Exploration Venture v Grynberg, 22 AD3d 221 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 749 [2005]).Due process is not offended by the maintenance of this action
against third-party defendants. Given their "purposeful activities"
within this State (see Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v Montana Bd. of Invs., 21 AD3d 90, 93 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 65 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1095 [2006]), they "should reasonably anticipate being haled into court []here" (LaMarca v Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 NY2d 210, 216 [2000], quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson, 444 US [*2]286,
297 [1980]), and the prospect of defending such an action "comport[s]
with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" (id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
Jim Beam Brands Co. v Tequila Cuervo La Rojeña S.A. de C.V., 2009 NY Slip Op 05193 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)
Long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) was correctly found where
the complaint alleges that defendant breached the subject agreement in
New York by permitting its licensee to sell nonconforming products
here, and where the agreement regulates defendant's use of the subject
trademark throughout the entire United States, was negotiated in New
York by defendant's long-standing New York counsel, contains a New York
choice-of-law clause, and extends to "all those acting in concert or
participation with [defendant] or under [its] direction and control" (see Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 NY3d 65, 71 [2006]; Sunward Elecs., Inc. v McDonald,
362 F3d 17, 22, 23 [2d Cir 2004]). Given long-arm jurisdiction under
CPLR 302(a)(1), we need not reach the question of whether there is also
jurisdiction under CPLR 301 (see Deutsche Bank, 7 NY3d at 72 n 2).
R&R Capital LLC v Merritt, 2009 NY Slip Op 05179 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)
The court lacked jurisdiction to order plaintiffs to withdraw claims
pending in the state courts of Pennsylvania and Delaware, since, as we
recently found in the companion appeal, "the relief sought did not
relate to a cause of action raised in the initial complaint, nor was
the issue involved previously litigated in this action" (60 AD3d 528,
529 [2009]). Furthermore, the order improperly intrudes on the
jurisdiction of the Delaware and Pennsylvania courts, in violation of
established
principles of comity (see Ackerman v Ackerman, 219 AD2d 515
[1995]). There is no basis for the court's finding that the Delaware
and Pennsylvania actions were brought in bad faith or with an intent to
harass defendant.
bruteforcelawyer.com 