Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


March 24, 2004.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDERICK SCULLIN, Chief Judge, District



  On February 19, 2002, Plaintiff filed a personal injury suit in this Court enumerating causes of action in negligence, breach of warranty and strict products liability against Defendant, an Italian corporation with its principal place of business in Italy.

  Presently before the Court is Defendant's renewed motion for dismissal of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Plaintiff's request for an order pursuant to Page 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.


  According to Plaintiff, during March, 1999, he was an employee at American Tissue Corporation ("ATC") at its mill in Greenwich, New York. While at work, Plaintiff was walking along the floor of a dump station of the Tissue Slitter Rewinder ("rewinder"), a machine which Defendant designed, manufactured, and distributed. Plaintiff contends that he stepped into a depression in the machine, fell forward, and trapped his right hand and arm in the rewinder. He sustained permanent and severe personal injuries. Plaintiff contends that his injury resulted from Defendant's improper design, manufacture, and installation of the machine.

  On September 30, 2002, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant, or, alternatively, on the grounds of'forum non conveniens. See Dkt. No. 12. On December 5, 2002, the Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to renew and issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order permitting Plaintiff to engage in limited discovery*fn1 in order to determine whether the Court had Page 3 personal jurisdiction over Defendant under New York's long arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1) or § 302(a)(3)(ii).*fn2 See Dkt. No. 19. The Court also denied the motion for dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

  Defendant renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on June 27, 2003. Plaintiff opposes the motion and requests sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and that Defendant failed to answer several of the interrogatories Plaintiff sent pursuant to the Court's December 5, 2002 Order. Page 4


 A. Personal jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute

  Section 302(a)(1) of New York's long-arm statute "has two prongs, either of which can form a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary." Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 786 (2d Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); see also N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1). Under the transaction-of-business prong, a "party need not be physically present in the state at the time of service." Id. at 787 (citation omitted). Rather, the statute extends the jurisdiction of New York state courts to a nonresident who "`purposely availed [himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within New York and thereby invoked the benefits and protections of its laws . . . Id. (quotation omitted).'" [A] `single transaction would be sufficient to fulfill this requirement,'". . . so long as the relevant cause of action also arises from that transaction." Id. (citation and footnote omitted). To determine whether a non-domiciliary has transacted business in New York within the meaning of § 302(a)(1), "the court must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the contract action." Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Constab Polymer-Chemie GMBH & Co., No. 5:01-CV-882, 2002 WL 31084727, *4 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2002) (citation omitted).

  The second prong of § 302(a)(1) "captures cases where there are minimal contacts in New York, and, for example, a contract is made elsewhere for goods to be delivered or services to be performed in New York." Bank Brussels Lambert, 171 F.3d at 789 (citation omitted). In applying this provision,

  courts may consider whether the purchase orders and other documents provide for shipment to New York; whether the defendant collected New York sales tax in connection with the Page 5 transaction; whether the defendant solicited the contract in New York; whether the defendant entered New York for the purposes of performing the contract; and any other factor showing that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.