Zeidan v. Scott's Dev. Co., 167
| Decision Date | 07 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | CA 18–01678,167 |
| Citation | 173 A.D.3d 1639,103 N.Y.S.3d 707 |
| Parties | Mohammed ZEIDAN and Hiba Abuhamdeh, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. SCOTT'S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Scott's Splash Lagoon, Inc., Doing Business as Splash Lagoon Indoor Water Park Resort and Scott Enterprises, LLC, Doing Business as Splash Lagoon Indoor Water Park Resort, Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
173 A.D.3d 1639
103 N.Y.S.3d 707
Mohammed ZEIDAN and Hiba Abuhamdeh, Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
SCOTT'S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Scott's Splash Lagoon, Inc., Doing Business as Splash Lagoon Indoor Water Park Resort and Scott Enterprises, LLC, Doing Business as Splash Lagoon Indoor Water Park Resort, Defendants–Respondents.
167
CA 18–01678
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Entered: June 7, 2019
ANDREWS, BERNSTEIN, MARANTO & NICOTRA, PLLC, BUFFALO (RICHARD A. NICOTRA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA (PATRICK M. CAREY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Mohammed Zeidan (plaintiff) allegedly sustained injuries when, after going down a water slide at a water park in Pennsylvania owned and/or operated by defendants, he was struck by another patron who was sent down the water slide too closely behind him. Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting a cause of action for negligence based on defendants' alleged improper supervision of the water slide and inadequate training of the water park employees, as well as a derivative cause of action on behalf of plaintiff's spouse. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 3211[a][8] ). "[I]n opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), [plaintiffs] need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant[s] ... [were] subject to the personal jurisdiction of" the court
( Halas v. Dick's Sporting Goods, 105 A.D.3d 1411, 1412, 964 N.Y.S.2d 808 [4th Dept. 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, however, having accepted as true the allegations set forth in the complaint and in plaintiffs' opposition papers, and having accorded plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference (see Whitcraft v. Runyon, 123 A.D.3d 811, 812, 999 N.Y.S.2d 124 [2d Dept. 2014] ), we conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet that burden (see id. ; cf. Halas, 105 A.D.3d at 1412, 964 N.Y.S.2d 808 ).
Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, they failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Utica v. Mallette
...S.L. v. Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro , 29 N.Y.3d 292, 298, 56 N.Y.S.3d 488, 78 N.E.3d 1172 [2017] ; see Zeidan v. Scott's Dev. Co. , 173 A.D.3d 1639, 1640, 103 N.Y.S.3d 707 [4th Dept. 2019] ). With respect to due process, a non-domiciliary must have "certain minimum contacts with [New Yor......
-
City of Utica v. Mallette
... ... [2019]; see LaMarca v Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d ... 210, 214 [2000]). Under CPLR 302 (a), ... N.Y.3d 292, 298 [2017]; see Zeidan v Scott's Dev ... Co., 173 A.D.3d 1639, 1640 [4th ... ...
-
Dillon v. Peak Envtl., LLC
... ... Co. v. Di Cienzo , 274 A.D.2d 960, 960, 710 N.Y.S.2d 828 [4th ... ...
-
Backer & Assocs., LLC v. PPB Eng'g & Sys. Design, Inc.
...2012] ). Thus, "the court's determination of discovery issues should be disturbed only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion" ( 103 N.Y.S.3d 707 Roswell Park Cancer Inst. Corp. v. Sodexho Am., LLC, 68 A.D.3d 1720, 1721, 891 N.Y.S.2d 827 [4th Dept. 2009] ). Here, in their motion, defen......