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.
Christine CARRS, etc., appellant, v. AVCO CORPORATION, etc., et al., defendants, Superior Air Parts, Inc., respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O.Bellantoni, J.), dated January 10, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendant Superior Air Parts, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
When a motion is made to dismiss an action for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving a basis for such jurisdiction over a defendant (see Waggaman v. Arauzo, 117 AD3d 724; Paterno v. Laser Spine Inst., 112 AD3d 34, 39, affd ––– NY3d ––––, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op 08054 [2014] ). However, to defeat a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need only establish, prima facie, that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (see Weitz v. Weitz, 85 AD3d 1153; Cornely v. Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC, 44 AD3d 986; Brandt v. Toraby, 273 A.D.2d 429).
In opposition to the motion of the defendant Superior Air Parts, Inc. (hereinafter Superior), pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the activities of Superior in New York subjected it to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 301 and 302(a)(3)(i) (see Daimler AG v. Bauman, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S Ct 746, 759–760; J. McIntyre Mach. v. Nicastro, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S Ct 2780, 2788; Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 112–113; Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., 77 N.Y.2d 28, 33; Laufer v. Ostrow, 55 N.Y.2d 305, 309–310; Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Intl., 19 N.Y.2d 533, 536; Paterno v. Laser Spine Inst., 112 AD3d at 40; Brandt v. Toraby, 273 A.D.2d 429; Cooperstein v. Pan–Oceanic Mar ., 124 A.D.2d 632, 634; cf. Weitz v. Weitz, 85 AD3d 1153; Cornely v. Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC, 44 AD3d 986).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Superior's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 21, 2015
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.
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.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)