REDELL WITTE v. T.M. Cobb Company, Defendant–Appellant. (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered on or about July 24, 2023, which denied defendant T.M. Cobb Company's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The court should have granted the motion to dismiss the complaint as against this defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(2) because there is no evidence that the fire doors that allegedly caused decedent plaintiff's injury by exposing him to asbestos were manufactured in New York. To the contrary, the testimony revealed that defendant, a company incorporated in California, never manufactured any products outside of California.  Thus, defendant did not commit a tortious act “within the state” to confer jurisdiction (see CPLR 302[a][2];  Longines–Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc., 15 N.Y.2d 443, 458–466, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 209 N.E.2d 68 [1965], cert denied sub nom.  Estwing Mfg. Co. v. Singer, 382 U.S. 905, 86 S.Ct. 241, 15 L.Ed.2d 158 [1965];  SOS Capital v. Recycling Paper Partners of PA, LLC, 220 A.D.3d 25, 196 N.Y.S.3d 382 [1st Dept. 2023]).

Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence of defendant's requisite minimal contacts with New York to comport with due process in the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it (see Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 33 N.Y.3d 523, 528, 106 N.Y.S.3d 237, 130 N.E.3d 833 [2019];  Carpino v. National Store Fixtures Inc., 275 A.D.2d 580, 582, 712 N.Y.S.2d 684 [3d Dept. 2000]).