OVASKAINEN v. OVASKAINEN (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lisa S. Headley, J.), entered April 16, 2024, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this defamation action, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of long-arm jurisdiction over defendant, as he provided no evidence that defendant purposefully transacted business within the state (see CPLR 302[a][1];  SPCA of Upstate N.Y., Inc. v. American Working Collie Assn., 18 N.Y.3d 400, 404, 940 N.Y.S.2d 525, 963 N.E.2d 1226 [2012];  Concotilli v. Brown, 168 A.D.3d 426, 88 N.Y.S.3d 883 [1st Dept. 2019]).  Defendant averred that she is a citizen of Finland with a permanent residence in England, and does not own property, live, or conduct business in New York. Further, the allegedly defamatory statements were made in connection with a Cayman Islands action that sought to enforce a divorce award obtained in Switzerland (see Minella v. Restifo, 124 A.D.3d 486, 486–487, 3 N.Y.S.3d 322 [1st Dept. 2015]).  In opposition, plaintiff provided no factual support for his allegation that defendant transacted business within the state, thus we need not consider whether there was a connection between defendant's business in the state and the allegedly defamatory statements (see Copp v. Ramirez, 62 A.D.3d 23, 28, 874 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept. 2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 711, 2009 WL 1543926 [2009]).

Discovery on the jurisdictional issue is not warranted, as plaintiff failed to make a “sufficient start” in demonstrating the existence of long-arm jurisdiction (Minella v. Restifo, 124 A.D.3d 486, 487, 3 N.Y.S.3d 322 [1st Dept. 2015]).