Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ann L. FRANKLIN, et al., Respondents, v. CATAWBA INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover uninsured motorist benefits under an automobile liability insurance policy, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated November 14, 2000, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
On February 7, 1998, while driving in Brooklyn, the plaintiff Levan Frank, whose vehicle was owned by the nonparty Aaron Frank and insured by Catawba Insurance Company (hereinafter Catawba) collided with a vehicle owned and operated by Samir A. Alkuibadi. The vehicle Frank was operating was registered in South Carolina and Catawba is a South Carolina corporation.
Frank and a passenger in his vehicle, Ann L. Franklin, commenced this action against Catawba and Cottingham Insurance Agency s/h/a Cottingham Insurance Company, the agency in South Carolina which secured the policy for Aaron Frank, to recover uninsured motorist benefits. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.
On their motion to dismiss, the defendants established that they are not licensed to do business in New York, they have no offices, agents, or telephones in New York, and they do not solicit any business in New York. The plaintiffs failed to produce evidence demonstrating that the defendants transacted business or contracted to provide goods or services in New York (see, CPLR 302[a][1]; New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 260 A.D.2d 638, 688 N.Y.S.2d 681; Appollon Waterproofing & Restoration Corp. v. Kodiak Ins. Co., 237 A.D.2d 552, 655 N.Y.S.2d 635). Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 04, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)