MARY JO KEANE, APPELLANT, v. MADELINE KAMIN ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
94 N.Y.2d 263 (1999).
December 16, 1999
1 No. 193
(99 NY Int. 0174)
Decided December 16, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Submitted by Sylvain R. Jakabovics, for appellant.
Thomas K. Moore, for respondents.
ROSENBLATT, J.:
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505(5) requires every licensee to notify the
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, in writing, "of any change of
residence of such licensee within tendays after such change occurs."
Following an accident in which plaintiff Mary Jo Keane was allegedly
injured, defendants Madeline and Jack Kamin moved out of New York
State, failing to notify the Commissioner of their new addresses. We
must decide whether this failure estops defendants, as
non-domiciliaries, from contesting personal jurisdiction in this
action. We hold that it does not, and that defendants were not subject
to personal jurisdiction in New York.
In January 1992, plaintiff Mary Jo Keane was allegedly injured in an
automobile accident in Vermont. Defendant Madeline Kamin was driving
the other car, owned by her father, codefendant Jack Kamin. At the
time, plaintiff was domiciled in Connecticut and defendants were both
domiciled in New York State. In February 1994 and July 1994,
defendants moved out of New York State without notifying the
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law
505(5).
On December 28, 1994 plaintiff filed a summons and complaint against
defendants in Supreme Court, New York County relying on the
information that defendant Madeline Kamin had provided in the accident
report as to her and her father's New York addresses. The Appellate
Division found that plaintiff did not attempt to serve defendants at
their former New York addresses. Plaintiff contends that the attempt
SNIPPETS:
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505requires every licensee to notify the Commissioner of Motor
Following an accident in which plaintiff Mary Jo Keane was allegedly injured, defendants
We must decide whether this failure estops defendants, as non-domiciliaries, from contesting
Defendant Madeline Kamin was driving the other car, owned by her father, codefendant Jack
plaintiff was domiciled in Connecticut and defendants were both domiciled in New York State.
On December 28, 1994 plaintiff filed a summons and complaint against defendants in Supreme
The Appellate Division found that plaintiff did not attempt to serve defendants at their
Defendants cross moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
This Court granted leave to appeal, and now affirms.
Plaintiff argues that defendants should be estopped from contesting personal jurisdiction
One component involves service of process, which implicates due process requirements of
Typically, a defendant who is otherwise subject to a court's jurisdiction, may seek dismissal
This consideration -- the jurisdictional basis -- is independent of service of process.
As Professor Siegel aptly points out, "both are products of due process * * * are best
On grounds of estoppel, the court excused the plaintiff's improper service because of the
the relevant provision of New York's long-arm statute is inapplicable because the alleged
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
|
