Mejia-Haffner v. Killington, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 30 July 2014
• Citation: 119 A.D.3d 912,990 N.Y.S.2d 561,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05522
• Parties: Claudia MEJIA–HAFFNER, et al., appellants, v. KILLINGTON, LTD., respondent, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

119 A.D.3d 912
990 N.Y.S.2d 561
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05522

Claudia MEJIA–HAFFNER, et al., appellants,
v.
KILLINGTON, LTD., respondent, et al., defendants.

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

July 30, 2014.

[990 N.Y.S.2d 562]

Gordon & Haffner, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Steven R. Haffner, pro se, of counsel), for appellants.

Ryan Smith & Carbine, P.C., Glens Falls, N.Y. (Mark F. Werle of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated December 19, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant Killington, Ltd., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Claudia Mejia–Haffner and her husband, the plaintiff Steven R. Haffner, enrolled in a ski racing instructional camp operated by Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC, sued herein as Killington, Ltd. (hereinafter Killington), at Killington's ski resort in Vermont. The plaintiffs made their reservations through the American Ski Racing Association. While participating in the camp, Mejia–Haffner (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was injured, and the plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, Killington.

Killington moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground, inter alia, that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. The Supreme Court granted Killington's motion for summary judgment finding, among other things, that New York did not have jurisdiction over Killington.

[990 N.Y.S.2d 563]

“A foreign corporation is amenable to suit in New York courts under CPLR 301 if it has engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of ‘doing business' here that a finding of its ‘presence’ in this jurisdiction is warranted” ( Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., 77 N.Y.2d 28, 33, 563 N.Y.S.2d 739, 565 N.E.2d 488, quoting Laufer v. Ostrow, 55 N.Y.2d 305, 309–310, 449 N.Y.S.2d 456, 434 N.E.2d 692;see Cardone v. Jiminy Peak, 245 A.D.2d 1002, 1003, 667 N.Y.S.2d 82;Sedig v. Okemo Mtn., 204 A.D.2d 709, 710, 612 N.Y.S.2d 643). Mere solicitation of business within New York will not subject a defendant to New York's jurisdiction ( see Cardone v. Jiminy Peak, 245 A.D.2d at 1003, 667 N.Y.S.2d 82;Sedig v. Okemo Mtn., 204 A.D.2d at 710, 612 N.Y.S.2d 643). Instead, a plaintiff asserting jurisdiction under CPLR 301 must satisfy the standard of “solicitation plus,” which requires a showing of “ ‘activities of substance in addition to solicitation’ ” ( Arroyo v. Mountain School, 68 A.D.3d 603, 604, 892 N.Y.S.2d 74, quoting Laufer v. Ostrow, 55 N.Y.2d at 310, 449 N.Y.S.2d 456, 434 N.E.2d 692;see Cardone v. Jiminy Peak, 245 A.D.2d at 1003, 667 N.Y.S.2d 82;Sedig v. Okemo Mtn., 204 A.D.2d at 710, 612 N.Y.S.2d 643).

Even assuming that Killington engaged in substantial advertising in New York, as the plaintiffs claim, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Killington also engaged in substantial activity within this State sufficient to satisfy the solicitation-plus standard. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, this Court's decision in Grimaldi v. Guinn, 72 A.D.3d 37, 49–50, 895 N.Y.S.2d 156 does not stand for the principle that a business's interactive website, accessible in New York, subjects it to suit in this State for all purposes. Instead, the Grimaldi decision stands only for the more limited principle that a website may support specific jurisdiction in New York where the claim asserted has some relationship to the business transacted via the website ( see id.;see also Paterno v. Laser Spine Inst., 112 A.D.3d 34, 973 N.Y.S.2d...