Practice point: New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who transacts business in New York or who contracts anywhere to supply goods or services here, pursuant to CPLR 302[a][1]), even where defendant has never physically entered the state, so long as defendant's New York activities were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between those activities and plaintiff’s claim.
Practitioners should note that exercising jurisdiction must not be inconsistent with traditional notions of due process, fair play, and substantial justice, pursuant to International Shoe.
Case: Bogal v. Finger, NY Slip Op 01435 (2d Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Dog bites.
