§Why CasetextPricing

Frank Paterno, Appellant,v.Laser Spine Institute, et al., Respondents.

Brief

27 Cited authorities

  1. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

    952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)   Cited 1,291 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania

  2. McGowan v. Smith

    52 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 599 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant exporter's visits to New York to conduct general marketing research did not "bear a substantial relationship" to products liability action arising from purchase of defendant's product in New York because "[w]hile these visits certainly may be characterized as `purposeful' . . . the occurrence of these visits serves merely to establish [the defendant exporter's] transitory physical presence within the State."

  3. Fantis v. Standard Importing

    49 N.Y.2d 317 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 302 did not confer personal jurisdiction over defendant where "the only possible connection between the claimed conversion and any injury or foreseeable consequence in New York is the fact that [plaintiff] is incorporated and maintains offices there"

  4. Ingraham v. Carroll

    90 N.Y.2d 592 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 154 times
    Holding that the foreseeability prong of Section 302 was met where the defendant, an out-of-state doctor, "concededly" had been "aware that decedent, a New York resident, was receiving treatment from New York State primary physicians based, at least in part on his recommendations" and had "contacted decedent's physicians directly, by mail and by telephone, concerning the treatment she was to receive in New York"

  5. O'Brien v. Hackensack University Medical Center

    305 A.D.2d 199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that there was no personal jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute over a non-New York-domiciliary defendant that negligently injured a New York-domiciliary plaintiff outside of New York, even where the defendant solicited the plaintiff's business in New York

  6. Grimaldi v. Guinn

    72 A.D.3d 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 71 times
    Finding that the Court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant in Pennsylvania "in light of the number, nature, and timing of all of the contacts involved, including the numerous telephone, fax, e-mail, and other written communications with the plaintiff in New York that [defendant] initiated subsequent to his initial involvement in the project, as well as the manner in which [defendant] employed his decidedly passive web site for commercial access"

  7. Kimco Exc. Pla. v. Benz

    34 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 70 times
    Holding in case involving sale of Florida property that "defendants' acts of faxing the executed contracts to New York and of making a few telephone calls do not qualify as purposeful acts constituting the transacting of business"

  8. Daniel B. Katz & Associates Corp. v. Midland Rushmore, LLC

    90 A.D.3d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that phone calls and emails to offices in New York concerning the out of state shopping centers at issue were not enough to submit the out of state defendants to personal jurisdiction

  9. Lang v. Wycoff Heights Med

    55 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 48 times
    In Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. (55 AD3d 793, 794 [2nd Dept 2008]), the Court stated that where a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, "a plaintiff 'need only make a prima facie showing' that such jurisdiction exists."

  10. Hermann v. Sharon Hospital, Inc.

    135 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that there was no personal jurisdiction over a Connecticut hospital even though "defendant hospital's physicians are licensed to practice in both New York and Connecticut and . . . a sizeable portion of its patients reside in New York"

  11. Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries

    N.Y. CPLR 302   Cited 4,190 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"