Summary
In Lebel, the Court in New York properly exercised jurisdiction over torts involving a plane crash which occurred in Santa Fe, New Mexico as the underlying contract for the sale of said plane occurred in New York and the contract for same included the cross-country flight.
Summary of this case from N. S. v. FrankenhoffOpinion
May 9, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about October 1, 1999, which granted defendant's motion for an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.
Leslie Trager, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Thomas A. Frizzell, Jr., for Defendant-Respondent.
SULLIVAN, P.J., MAZZARELLI, ELLERIN, LERNER, FRIEDMAN, JJ.
Defendant, a California resident, sought to purchase a Republic RC-3 SeaBee aircraft that was located in Brookhaven, New York. To this end, he contracted with plaintiff, who appears to maintain residences in both New York and Rhode Island, to inspect the plane, determine if it was airworthy, and ferry the plane to the Westchester County Airport. It was also agreed that plaintiff would provide defendant with 25 hours of flight instruction, which would include a cross-country flight to California, where the plane would ultimately be stationed.
Thereafter, defendant came to New York to commence the flight to California, staying at the apartment of plaintiff's girlfriend. Over the next three days, before the parties could begin the trip, defendant received flight instruction both on the ground and in the air, and reviewed the flight plans with plaintiff. A few days after the cross-country trip began, the aircraft crashed on takeoff in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with defendant at the controls. This action, asserting claims of negligence, ensued.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion. This was error.
CPLR 302(a)(1) provides that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who, in person or through an agent, transacts any business within the State, provided that the cause of action arises out of the transaction of business. The statutory test for transaction of business within the State "may be satisfied by a showing of . . . purposeful acts performed by the [defendant] in this State in relation to the contract, albeit preliminary or subsequent to its execution" (Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes Reinecke, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 457, cert denied 382 U.S. 905). Although the statute is typically invoked in cases involving contractual liability, it also has application in tort actions (id. at 466).
Here, defendant's significant and purposeful acts in New York with regard to the transaction at issue were sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the statute (see, id. at 467; Lupton v. Northeast Plastics, 105 A.D.2d 3). Moreover, although the accident occurred in Santa Fe, it plainly arose out of the transaction of business in New York since there was a clearly articulable nexus between the accident and the transactions in New York (McGowan v. Smith, 52 N.Y.2d 268, 272). Accordingly, personal jurisdiction over defendant was acquired.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.