4 No. 91
Paul LaMarca,
Appellant,
v.
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company,
Respondent, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________
(And a third-party action.)
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 88
July 6, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Helen Kaney Dempsey, for appellant.
D. Patrick Gallaher, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
ROSENBLATT, J.:
The case before us involves a challenge to New York's long-arm
jurisdiction. Plaintiff, a Town of Niagara employee, sued defendant
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company, a Texas corporation, alleging that he
was injured when he fell from a sanitation truck equipped with a
defective Pak-Mor loading device. In his complaint against Pak-Mor,
plaintiff alleged negligence, breach of warranty, failure to warn and
strict products liability. Pak-Mor moved to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and the
Appellate Division affirmed.(1) For reasons that follow, we
conclude that the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction over Pak-Mor is
compatible with both CPLR 302 and due process. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Pak-Mor is a Texas corporation that manufactures garbage hauling
equipment. It has a manufacturing facility in Virginia. The company
has no property, offices, telephone numbers or employees in this
State. It does, however, maintain a New York distributor, Truckmobile
Equipment Corp., and a district representative. In the year of the
accident, Pak-Mor's total sales revenue was $18,245,292.00,
$514,490.00 of which was derived from New York. The company advertised
in nationally published trade magazines using a logo that read
SNIPPETS:
The case before us involves a challenge to New York's long-arm jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, a Town of Niagara employee, sued defendant Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company, a Texas
Supreme Court granted the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed.For reasons that follow,
It does, however, maintain a New York distributor, Truckmobile Equipment Corp., and a
In the year of the accident, Pak-Mor's total sales revenue was $18,245,292.00, $514,490.00 of
Pak-Mor sold the rear-loading device that was alleged to have caused plaintiff's injuries to
Pak-Mor installed the device on the truck at its Virginia facility, where its distributor
plaintiff was injured when he fell off the back of the truck while standing on the riding
To determine whether a non-domiciliary may be sued in New York, we first determine whether
commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the
* * * "expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and
The conferral of jurisdiction under this provision rests on five elements: First, that
The element "is intended to ensure some link between a defendant and New York State to make
the defendant need not foresee the specific event that produced the alleged injury.
Pak-Mor had reason to expect that any defects would have
The fifth element -- defendant's deriving substantial revenue from interstate or
Its national advertising and New York sales figures alone show that the company derives
and "Fair Play and Substantial Justice"
Due process is not satisfied unless a non-domiciliary has "minimum contacts" with the forum
The test has come to rest on whether a defendant's "conduct and connection with the forum
In Asahi Metal Indus.
|
