Motion to Quash Service of Summons in New York

Background

A party may move to quash service of summons on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant. (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 3211(a)(8).)

How to Structure the Motion

“Although a plaintiff is not required to plead and prove personal jurisdiction in the complaint, where jurisdiction is contested, the ultimate burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff.” (Pichardo v. Zayas, 122 A.D.3d 699, 700-01 [2nd dept. 2014].)

A plaintiff may establish personal jurisdiction by showing either general jurisdiction, where the defendant’s affiliations with the forum state are so continuous as to render them essentially “at home” in the state, or specific jurisdiction, where the defendant has sufficient contacts relating to the underlying controversy under New York’s long-arm statute. (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 302.)

The Court’s Decision

The jurisdictional inquiry is twofold. (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 302(a)(1).) “Under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions.” (Al Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie, 28 N.Y.3d 316, 323 [2016].) Essential to maintenance of a suit against a non-domiciliary under this section is existence of some articulable nexus between business transacted and cause of action sued upon. (McGowan v. Smith, 52 N.Y.2d 268 [1981].)

Section 302 of Civil Practice Law and Rules provides for personal jurisdiction over a defendant which “commits a tortious act within the state.” (Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc., 15 N.Y.2d 443, 465 [1965].)

A court may also exercise personal jurisdiction over anyone who “commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state.” (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 302(a)(3).) “The situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt by the plaintiff.” (Varchonas v. Tonyes, 61 A.D.3d 850 [2nd Dept. 2009]; Black v. Oberle Rentals, Inc., 55 Misc. 2d 398 [Sup. Ct. Onondaga Cty. 1967].)