McLenithan v. Bennington Community Health Plan

• Decision Date: 04 January 1996
• Citation: 223 A.D.2d 777,635 N.Y.S.2d 812
• Parties: R. Patrick McLENITHAN et al., Individually and as Parents and Guardians of Samantha McLenithan, an Infant, Appellants, v. BENNINGTON COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN et al., Defendants, and Southwestern Vermont Medical Center et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 812

635 N.Y.S.2d 812

223 A.D.2d 777

R. Patrick McLENITHAN et al., Individually and as Parents and Guardians of Samantha McLenithan, an Infant, Appellants, v BENNINGTON COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN et al., Defendants and Southwestern Vermont Medical Center et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Jan. 4, 1996.

La Fave & Associates (Catherine A. Adlerman, of counsel), Delmar, for appellants.

Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker & Firth P.C. (Robert P. Mc Nally, of counsel), Glens Falls, for Southwestern Vermont Medical Center and another, respondents.

Thorn and Gershon (Paul J. Catone, of counsel), Albany, for Gregory King, respondent.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and CREW, WHITE and PETERS, JJ.

WHITE, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered November 10, 1994 in Washington County, which, inter alia, granted motions by defendants Gregory King, Katherine Uraneck and Southwestern Vermont Medical Center to dismiss the complaint against them for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction.

The principal issue on this appeal is whether Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs' complaint in this medical malpractice action against defendants Southwestern Vermont Medical Center (hereinafter SVMC), Katherine Uraneck, an employee of SVMC, and Gregory King on the ground that personal jurisdiction over them had not been obtained. For the reasons that follow, our findings, in certain respects, differ from those of Supreme Court.

The jurisdictional issue arose in this case because the medical treatment rendered to Samantha McLenithan, an infant and a resident of New York, by these defendants in June 1993 was provided in Vermont. Supreme Court's order reflects its acceptance of the defendants' argument that this circumstance, along with their absence from New York, precluded Supreme Court from assuming jurisdiction.

King argued that, although he is licensed to practice medicine in New York, he is beyond the reach of the judicial forum because he does not maintain an office in or treat patients in New York, limiting his practice solely to Vermont. Plaintiffs, who have the burden of establishing jurisdiction (see, Carte v. Parkoff, 152 A.D.2d 615, 617, 543 N.Y.S.2d 718), contend otherwise, pointing to the fact that King contracted with defendant Capital Area Community Health Plan, Inc. (hereinafter CHP), a New York-based health maintenance organization, to provide medical care and treatment to CHP's subscribers who are mainly residents of New York. In view of this contract, plaintiffs maintain that King has subjected himself to jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1).

CPLR 302(a)(1) is a long-arm statute that gives New York personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary if the nondomiciliary "transacts business" within the State and there is "an articulable nexus between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon" (CutCo Indus. v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361, 365; see, McGowan v. Smith, 52 N.Y.2d 268, 272, 437 N.Y.S.2d 643, 419 N.E.2d 321). The "transacting business" prerequisite is satisfied if it is shown that the nondomiciliary " ' * * * purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws' " (McKee Elec. Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp., 20 N.Y.2d 377, 382, 283 N.Y.S.2d 34, 229 N.E.2d 604, quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283). As a broad generalization, a nondomiciliary who enters New York's service economy pursuant to a contract is more likely to be deemed to be transacting business in New York than is one who performs services out of State for New York residents on a random basis (compare, Peekskill Community Hosp. v. Graphic Media, 198 A.D.2d 337, 338, 604 N.Y.S.2d 120; Battista v. American Inst. for Mental Studies, ...