Concotilli v. Brown, 8020

• Decision Date: 03 January 2019
• Docket Number: Index 155423/16,8020
• Citation: 88 N.Y.S.3d 883 (Mem),168 A.D.3d 426
• Parties: Corrine CONCOTILLI, Doing Business as Black Arrow Press, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Scot BROWN, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 426

88 N.Y.S.3d 883 (Mem)

Corrine CONCOTILLI, Doing Business as Black Arrow Press, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Scot BROWN, Defendant–Respondent.

8020

Index 155423/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: JANUARY 3, 2019

Law Office of Richard A. Altman, New York (Richard A. Altman of counsel), for appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn, Oing, Singh, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered July 11, 2017, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1). Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that defendant purposefully transacts business within the state, as required by statute, or that there is a connection between defendant's transactions and the alleged defamatory statement at issue ( SPCA of Upstate NY, Inc. v. American Working Collie, 18 N.Y.3d 400, 404, 940 N.Y.S.2d 525, 963 N.E.2d 1226 [2012] ; Copp v. Ramirez, 62 A.D.3d 23, 28, 874 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 711, 2009 WL 1543926 [2009] ). Defendant is an Arizona resident who does not own property, live, or conduct business in New York, other than his work as managing member of an Arizona LLC, which sells holistic supplies over the internet (see Minella v. Restifo, 124 A.D.3d 486, 3 N.Y.S.3d 322 [1st Dept. 2015] ). The alleged defamatory statement was posted on the Arizona LLC website, and plaintiff has not produced evidence to connect it to defendant, or otherwise meet the requirements of CPLR 302(a)(1).

Having failed to submit more that bare allegations in opposition to defendant's motion, we reject plaintiff's request for discovery on the jurisdictional issue ( Minella, 124 A.D.3d at 487, 3 N.Y.S.3d 322 ).