Halas v. Dick's Sporting Goods

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02915,105 A.D.3d 1411,964 N.Y.S.2d 808
PartiesShawn HALAS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, Defendant, and Big Dog Treestands, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
Decision Date26 April 2013

105 A.D.3d 1411
964 N.Y.S.2d 808
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02915

Shawn HALAS, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, Defendant,
and
Big Dog Treestands, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.

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

April 26, 2013.


[964 N.Y.S.2d 809]


Osborn, Reed & Burke, LLP, Rochester (Jeffrey P. Dipalma of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Paul William Beltz, P.C., Buffalo (Debra A. Norton of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.

[964 N.Y.S.2d 810]


PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.


MEMORANDUM:

[105 A.D.3d 1411]Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from a tree stand manufactured by Big Dog Treestands, Inc. (defendant) and sold by defendant Dick's Sporting Goods (Dick's). Defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint against it based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

A foreign corporation is amenable to suit in New York courts under CPLR 302(a)(1) if it “transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state.” Typical business transactions include sales, soliciting customers, contracting, providing services, and shipping products into the state ( see e.g. George Reiner & Co. v. Schwartz, 41 N.Y.2d 648, 653, 394 N.Y.S.2d 844, 363 N.E.2d 551;Symenow v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 244 A.D.2d 880, 880–881, 665 N.Y.S.2d 141). Additionally, the assertion of personal jurisdiction may be reasonable where a party maintains a website that “provides information, permits access to [email] communication, describes the goods or services offered[105 A.D.3d 1412], downloads a printed order form, or allows online sales with the use of a credit card, and sales are, in fact, made ... in this manner in the forum state” ( Grimaldi v. Guinn, 72 A.D.3d 37, 50, 895 N.Y.S.2d 156). Although “ ‘the ultimate burden of proof rests with the party asserting jurisdiction, ... in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), [plaintiff] need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant ... was subject to the personal jurisdiction of ... Supreme Court’ ” ( Constantine v. Stella Maris Ins. Co., Ltd., 97 A.D.3d 1129, 1130, 948 N.Y.S.2d 802). We conclude that plaintiff met that burden.

Here, defendant had an exclusive distributorship agreement with Dick's, and maintained a website that provided information relating to its products, directed consumers to retail locations where they could purchase the products, and allowed for the direct purchase of the products through a credit card. Therefore, defendant was transacting business in New York through the use of its website, and the court properly concluded that there is long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1).

We also conclude in any event that defendant is subject to long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii). Under that provision, courts “may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary ... who ... commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person ... within the state ... if he ... expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.” “The conferral of jurisdiction under [that] provision rests on five elements: First, that defendant committed a tortious act outside the State; second, that the cause of action arises from that act; third, that the act caused...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Williams v. Beemiller, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 9, 2018
    ...883 ; Darrow v. Hetronic Deutschland, 119 A.D.3d 1142, 1144–1145, 990 N.Y.S.2d 150 [3d Dept. 2014] ; Halas v. Dick's Sporting Goods, 105 A.D.3d 1411, 1413, 964 N.Y.S.2d 808 [4th Dept. 2013] ). Instead, Bostic and his associates came to Ohio gun shows where they purchased guns from Brown and......
  • Mejia-Haffner v. Killington, Ltd.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 30, 2014
    ...in the complaint ( see Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 N.Y.3d at 381 n. 5, 849 N.Y.S.2d 501, 880 N.E.2d 22;Halas v. Dick's Sporting Goods, 105 A.D.3d 1411, 964 N.Y.S.2d 808;Cadle Co. v. Ayala, 47 A.D.3d 919, 920, 850 N.Y.S.2d 563;Ying Jun Chen v. Lei Shi, 19 A.D.3d 407, 407–408, 796 N.Y.S.2d 126), w......
  • Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 20, 2014
    ...direct interaction for online registration, or that it allowed for online purchase of LSI services (see Halas v. Dick's Sporting Goods, 105 A.D.3d 1411, 1412, 964 N.Y.S.2d 808 [4th Dept.2013] ; Murphy v. Cirrus Design Corp., 38 Misc.3d 1227[A], 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 50293 [U] [Sup.Ct.Erie Coun......
  • Paterno v. Laser Spine Inst.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 20, 2014
    ...direct interaction for online registration, or that it allowed for online purchase of LSI services (see Halas v. Dick's Sporting Goods, 105 A.D.3d 1411, 1412, 964 N.Y.S.2d 808 [4th Dept.2013] ; Murphy v. Cirrus Design Corp., 38 Misc.3d 1227[A], 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 50293 [U] [Sup.Ct.Erie Coun......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT