Bloomgarden v. Lanza
| Decision Date | 19 October 2016 |
| Citation | 40 N.Y.S.3d 142,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06798,143 A.D.3d 850 |
| Parties | Joan BLOOMGARDEN, et al., appellants, v. Anthony LANZA, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
143 A.D.3d 850
40 N.Y.S.3d 142
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06798
Joan BLOOMGARDEN, et al., appellants,
v.
Anthony LANZA, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 19, 2016.
Law Offices of Stanley E. Orzechowski P.C., Nesconset, NY, for appellants.
Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP, Woodbury, NY (Brett A. Scher of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of
the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martin, J.), dated June 5, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and, in effect, denied their
cross motion, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration clause in a particular contract.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, legal malpractice against the defendants, attorneys in California, who represented the plaintiffs in an action against certain Florida attorneys in Florida. The defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint in this action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion. The plaintiffs appeal.
“Although the ultimate burden of proof regarding personal jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff, to defeat a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion to dismiss a complaint, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court” (Whitecraft v. Runyon, 123 A.D.3d 811, 812, 999 N.Y.S.2d 124, citing Weitz v. Weitz, 85 A.D.3d 1153, 926 N.Y.S.2d 305 and Cornely v. Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC, 44 A.D.3d 986, 845 N.Y.S.2d 797 ). Here, accepting as true the allegations set forth in the complaint and in the opposition to the motion, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference (see Whitecraft v. Runyon, 123 A.D.3d at 812, 999 N.Y.S.2d 124 ), we find that the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.
Pursuant to 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” (CPLR 302[a][1] ). “Whether a defendant has transacted business within New York is determined under the totality of the circumstances, and rests on whether the defendant, by some act or acts, has ‘purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York]’ ” (Paradigm Mktg. Consortium, Inc. v. Yale New Haven Hosp., Inc., 124 A.D.3d 736, 737, 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Qudsi v. Larios
...Smith, 52 N.Y.2d 268, 274, 437 N.Y.S.2d 643, 419 N.E.2d 321 ; Abad v. Lorenzo, 163 A.D.3d at 905, 82 N.Y.S.3d 486 ; Bloomgarden v. Lanza, 143 A.D.3d 850, 852, 40 N.Y.S.3d 142 ; Vaichunas v. Tonyes, 61 A.D.3d 850, 851, 877 N.Y.S.2d 204 ). Here, since the accident which caused the injuries oc......
-
Malczuk v. Michaels Org.
...998 N.Y.S.2d 720, 23 N.E.3d 988 [2014] ; McGowan v. Smith , 52 N.Y.2d 268, 437 N.Y.S.2d 643, 419 N.E.2d 321 [1981] ; Bloomgarden v. Lanza , 143 A.D.3d 850, 40 N.Y.S.3d 142 [2d Dept. [2016] ; Vaichunas v. Tonyes , 61 A.D.3d 850, 877 N.Y.S.2d 204 [2d Dept. 2009] ). Here, since the accident wh......
-
Statek Corp. v. Coudert Bros. LLP
...themselves into Connecticut or purposefully avail themselves of the benefits or protections of its laws."); accord Bloomgarden v. Lanza, 143 A.D.3d 850, 852 (2d Dep't 2016) ("The defendants communicated from California with the plaintiffs in New York . . . because the plaintiffs were New Yo......
-
Leuthner v. Homewood Suites by Hilton
...737, 2 N.Y.S.3d 180, quoting Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz, 9 N.Y.3d 501, 508, 851 N.Y.S.2d 381, 881 N.E.2d 830 ; see Bloomgarden v. Lanza, 143 A.D.3d 850, 851, 40 N.Y.S.3d 142 ). Further, in order to satisfy the second prong of the jurisdictional inquiry, there must be an "articulable nexus" ( ......