LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co.

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtROSENBLATT, J.
Citation735 N.E.2d 883,713 N.Y.S.2d 304,95 N.Y.2d 210
PartiesPAUL LaMARCA, Appellant, v. PAK-MOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Decision Date06 July 2000

95 N.Y.2d 210
735 N.E.2d 883
713 N.Y.S.2d 304

PAUL LaMARCA, Appellant,
v.
PAK-MOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued June 7, 2000.

Decided July 6, 2000.


95 N.Y.2d 212
Dempsey & Dempsey, Buffalo (Helen Kaney Dempsey and Mary Lisa Mikan of counsel), for appellant

Block & Colucci, P. C., Buffalo (D. Patrick Gallaher of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur; Judge WESLEY taking no part.

95 N.Y.2d 213
OPINION OF THE COURT

ROSENBLATT, J.

The case before us involves a challenge to New York's long-arm jurisdiction. Plaintiff, a Town of Niagara employee, sued defendant Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company, a Texas corporation, alleging that he was injured when he fell from a sanitation truck equipped with a defective Pak-Mor loading device. Plaintiff alleged negligence, breach of warranty, failure to warn and strict products liability. Pak-Mor moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed.1 For reasons that follow, we conclude that the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction over Pak-Mor is compatible with both CPLR 302 and due process. Accordingly, we reverse.

Pak-Mor is a Texas corporation that manufactures garbage hauling equipment. It has a manufacturing facility in Virginia. The company has no property, offices, telephone numbers or employees in this State. It does, however, maintain a New York distributor, Truckmobile Equipment Corp., and a district representative. In the year of the accident, Pak-Mor's total sales revenue was $18,245,292, $514,490 of which was derived from New York. The company advertised in nationally published trade magazines using a logo that read "Sanitation for the Nation." It also offered warranties and provided troubleshooting advice to the ultimate purchasers of its equipment.

Pak-Mor sold the allegedly faulty rear-loading device to its New York distributor, which in turn sold it to the Town of Niagara. Its "invoice and final inspection sheet" indicates that the rear-loader was destined for Niagara, New York. The document also lists a "New York Light Bar" under the heading "Additional or Special Information." Pak-Mor installed the device

95 N.Y.2d 214
on the truck at its Virginia facility. Its distributor picked up the truck in Virginia and delivered it to the Town of Niagara. Several months later, plaintiff was injured when he fell off the back of the truck while standing on the riding platform of the rear-loader

To determine whether a non-domiciliary may be sued in New York, we first determine whether our long-arm statute (CPLR 302) confers jurisdiction over it in light of its contacts with this State. If the defendant's relationship with New York falls within the terms of CPLR 302, we determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.

New York's Long-Arm Statute

CPLR 302 (a) provides:

"As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary * * * who * * *:
"3. commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act, if he * * *
"(ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" (CPLR 302 [a] [3] [ii]).

The conferral of jurisdiction under this 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 injury to a person or property within the State; fourth, that defendant expected or should reasonably have expected the act to have consequences in the State; and fifth, that defendant derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.

No one disputes the first three elements. Plaintiff has alleged that his cause of action arises from defendant's tortious acts outside the State, which caused him injury in Niagara, New York. The fourth element—contemplating "in-State consequences"—is met when "[t]he nonresident tortfeasor * * * expect[s], or ha[s] reason to expect, that his or her tortious activity in another State will have direct consequences in New York" (Ingraham v Carroll, 90 NY2d 592, 598 [emphasis added]).

95 N.Y.2d 215
The element "is intended to ensure some link between a defendant and New York State to make it reasonable to require a defendant to come to New York to answer for tortious conduct committed elsewhere" (Ingraham v Carroll, 90 NY2d, at 598, supra). Moreover, the defendant need not foresee the specific event that produced the alleged injury. The defendant need only reasonably foresee that any defect in its product would have direct consequences within the State (see, 12th Ann Report of NY Jud Conf, at 343-344; see generally, Siegel, NY Prac § 88, at 151 [3d ed])

Pak-Mor's invoice, including its reference to a "New York Light Bar," shows that it knew the rear-loader was destined for use in New York. Clearly, Pak-Mor had reason to expect that any defects would have direct consequences in this State.

The fifth element—defendant's deriving substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce—is designed to narrow "the long-arm reach to preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over nondomiciliaries who might cause direct, foreseeable injury within the State but `whose business operations are of a local character'" (Ingraham v Carroll, 90 NY2d, at 599, supra [quoting 12th Ann Report of NY Jud Conf, at 342-343]). Therefore, in Ingraham, we held that a physician who...

To continue reading

Request your trial
192 practice notes
  • Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, Docket No. 10–1306–cv.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 5 Marzo 2012
    ...personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”); accord LaMarca v. Pak–Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210, 216, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304, 308, 735 N.E.2d 883, 887 (2000). But see D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 105 (2d Cir.2006) (suggesting that......
  • Archer-Vail v. LHV Precast Inc., 526555
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 17 Enero 2019
    ...276 [2018] ; see Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie, 28 N.Y.3d 316, 330–331, 45 N.Y.S.3d 276, 68 N.E.3d 1 [2016] ; LaMarca v. Pak–Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210, 216, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304, 735 N.E.2d 883 [2000] ). As relevant here, "a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non[ ]domiciliary ... wh......
  • Williams v. Beemiller, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 5 Octubre 2012
    ...to Bostic's trafficking ring would have consequences in New York ( seeCPLR 302[a][3] [ii]; see generally LaMarca v. Pak–Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210, 215, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304, 735 N.E.2d 883;Darienzo v. Wise Shoe Stores, 74 A.D.2d 342, 346, 427 N.Y.S.2d 831). The complaint alleges that Brown so......
  • Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. Exlites Holdings Int'l, Inc., 18-CV-3293-SJB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 25 Marzo 2019
    ...revenue from interstate or international commerce. Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. , 609 F.3d at 35 (citing LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210, 214, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304, 735 N.E.2d 883 (2000) ). Here, even when construing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Madison St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
192 cases
  • Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, Docket No. 10–1306–cv.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 5 Marzo 2012
    ...personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”); accord LaMarca v. Pak–Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210, 216, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304, 308, 735 N.E.2d 883, 887 (2000). But see D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 105 (2d Cir.2006) (suggesting that......
  • Archer-Vail v. LHV Precast Inc., 526555
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 17 Enero 2019
    ...276 [2018] ; see Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie, 28 N.Y.3d 316, 330–331, 45 N.Y.S.3d 276, 68 N.E.3d 1 [2016] ; LaMarca v. Pak–Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210, 216, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304, 735 N.E.2d 883 [2000] ). As relevant here, "a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non[ ]domiciliary ... wh......
  • Williams v. Beemiller, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 5 Octubre 2012
    ...to Bostic's trafficking ring would have consequences in New York ( seeCPLR 302[a][3] [ii]; see generally LaMarca v. Pak–Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210, 215, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304, 735 N.E.2d 883;Darienzo v. Wise Shoe Stores, 74 A.D.2d 342, 346, 427 N.Y.S.2d 831). The complaint alleges that Brown so......
  • Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. Exlites Holdings Int'l, Inc., 18-CV-3293-SJB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 25 Marzo 2019
    ...revenue from interstate or international commerce. Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. , 609 F.3d at 35 (citing LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210, 214, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304, 735 N.E.2d 883 (2000) ). Here, even when construing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Madison St......
  • 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