Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in New York

What Is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction?

Background

“A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that… the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant.” (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 3211(a)(8).)

How to Structure the Motion

In order for a court to have any power over an individual or an entity, it must have both subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction over the individuals or entities involved. (Amelius v. Grand Imperial LLC, 57 Misc. 3d 835, 848 [2017].) Specific jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over an individual or an entity for the purposes of adjudicating a particular controversy that arises from the entity’s contacts. (Id.) General jurisdiction allows a court to adjudicate disputes regardless of where they occurred or whether they bear any relationship to the entity’s contacts with the forum state. (Id.)

When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction over it, the burden to prove that jurisdiction exists falls upon the plaintiff. (CRT Investments, Ltd. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 85 A.D.3d 470, 471 [1st Dept. 2011].) The plaintiff needs to establish that facts “may exist” to make a “sufficient start” to warrant further discovery on personal jurisdiction. (Marist Coll. v. Brady, 84 A.D.3d 1322, 1322 [2011].)

Response

The plaintiff must adduce evidence demonstrating there is a basis for asserting jurisdiction over the defendant; mere conclusory allegations in the complaint that defendant had the requisite contacts in New York cannot be considered in determining challenges to personal jurisdiction. (Pramer S.C.A. v. Abaplus Int’l. Corp., 76 A.D.3d 89, 97-98 [1st Dept. 2010].) New York case law is clear that the plaintiff must demonstrate through the pleadings and additional non-conclusory, non-speculative affidavits that facts exist to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (Peterson v. Spartan Industries, Inc., 33 N.Y.2d 463, 466-67 [1974]; Baker Salvage Corp. v. Maple Leaf Foods, Inc., 195 A.D.2d 954 [4th Dept. 1993].)

The Court’s Decision

“Minimum standards of due process require that an assertion of personal jurisdiction over an individual must be predicated upon a proper jurisdictional basis.” (Skyline Agency, Inc. v. Ambrose Coppotelli, Inc., 117 A.D.2d 135, 146-47 [2nd Dept. 1986].) Dismissal against a defendant is appropriate where the plaintiff failed to effectuate service of process upon a defendant. (Hayles v. Durenda, 228 A.D.2d 413 [2nd Dept. 1996].)

The court has held that jurisdiction is not acquired “unless both the delivery [to a person of suitable age and discretion at defendant’s place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode] and mailing requirements [to defendant’s last known residence or actual place of business] have been strictly complied with.” (Munoz v. Reyes, 40 A.D.3d 1059, 1059 [2nd Dept. 2007].) “The failure to serve process in an action leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void.” (Krisilas v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 63 A.D.3d 887, 889 [2009].)

Documents for Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in New York

Sort By

Roc Funding Group Llc v. Modern Homeworks Custom Remodels Fence A And Roofing Llc, Elizabeth Ann Cross document preview

EXHIBIT(S) - B - MERCHANT AGREEMENT # 2

12 pages

INDEX NO. 505009/2024 NYSCEF BOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 EXHIBIT B INDEX NO. 505009/2024 1457 Richmond Road, Staten Island, Nee WerhyIG@3044/25/2024 | Phone: (718) 355-8944 or eMail: contracts@rocfundinggroup.com …

Case Name Roc Funding Group Llc v. Modern Homeworks Custom Remodels Fence A And Roof…